Erik Zachte wrote:
To keep close to the subject at hand: the way that new
officers were
appointed is a prime example,
It came out of the blue. No discussion about definition of roles. I got very
much the impression that officers were to define their own role.
It was my view that we were for the most part simply recognizing roles
that already existed. There wasn't much need to discuss the scope of
Danny's role as grants co-ordinator because he was already doing a fine
job of it without benefit of a title. The purpose of the title was not
to give him additional responsibilities, but rather to make it easier
(more transparent) for people who wanted to work on grants to know where
to go to help.
I asked if Wikimania would be a good place to discuss
this more openly and
he agreed,
but his answer on a question by Tim Starling was something close to "We are
working on reform and you'll hear more in a few months time."
I think this may have been misunderstood. The issue is that we can't
simply change the bylaws willy-nilly, but we need to be very careful
legally to do things the right way. Before we can make practical steps
forward, we need to consult with lawyers with specific expertise in
Florida non-profit law to get a better understanding of the realistic
options which are open to us.
Why not publish most discussions verbatim with bits
taken away that are
sensitive and a short explanation of what has been left out.
I see no problem with this.
And let me state once more, what actually should go
without saying,
that this is not a personal attack on you or Jimmy or anyone, as I think
most highly of you all.
And I personally very much appreciate it. Hard and thoughtful questions
are what will keep this organization on track in the long run.
--Jimbo