Anthony wrote: Practically speaking, this resolution was listed as one of the issues to vote upon during an irc meeting. That meeting was attended by 4 board members. This is an important point, because it means the meeting was officially a board meeting since there was a quorum. But one board member did not go vote during the meeting. Contrarywise to a face to face meeting, where we can do something like "raise your hands", we can not "force" someone to go put their signature on the board wiki during an irc meeting. In this case, only 3 of the 4 people present voted at the board meeting. The one who did not vote during the meeting voted a few days later. Two absents from the meeting added their vote as well a few days later. The last one did not vote. Generally, we have two different types of resolutions. The ones held during face to face board meetings are immediately considered "passed". Voting a resolution during a board meeting in real life is actually quite a pleasure. First because I am sure to get opinions of all people present. Second because we work together on the resolution until as many of us are happy with it. If you have a look at the latest resolutions passed during the Florida board meeting, you will see a vote from 6 board members and no vote from Jimbo. This is because Jimbo was not at the meeting, and we did not keep the vote open on the board wiki after the meeting. The second type of resolution is the one dealt with online. This is much more complex, as discussions on mailing lists or irc does not make consensus writing easy. Many of the resolutions have to be dropped, because some start voting on it, whilst others are not happy and then vote against. Sometimes it is just a personal position, sometimes it is a legal issue being raised, which is raised *after* we started voting rather than before. I suppose some of you would think "yeah, so why was the issue not raised before then ?". Well, that is a good question. But not something on which I can easily act. Point is, if during the vote someone raise a legal issue, the resolution is dropped and we write a whole new one. Most online-type resolutions are open to vote during a certain time. But basically all of them are mentionned on the agenda of at least one irc board meeting and all board members are informed of a board meeting by email. Often, I even copy the agenda on the email itself (so the fact a resolution is proposed for a vote is given). Other times, in particular when the resolution is drafted during the board meeting, the resolution is not mentionned in the agenda. However, the board members are always informed of the topics raised during the board meeting. So, normally, this should be sufficient to assure that board members have received written notice. Since we very rarely have the full board at an irc meeting, the resolution often stays open even a few days after the irc meeting. Those missing have the time and opportunity to have a look at the resolution collectively drafted by those present at the meeting, and may vote according to their own position. We currently have too many meetings. I am aware of this. However, this comes from the fact there are so many things to take care of right now, and comes from the fact working on internet automatically speed up things. Most people who contact us with a proposition want an answer *now*. I have succeeded to slow down the pace, most requests usually are handled in the next 2 weeks if they are already prepared. Also, I try to switch to a system where most meetings are on specific topics. For example, the main topic of this week meeting is "fundraising". I foresee that a topic coming soon will be "elections" :-) I checked the bylaws recently, and I realised a point I forgot entirely about. (my mistake). http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#Section_4..09Meetings It is this point (d) Presumption of Assent. A Trustee of the Foundation who is present at a meeting of the Board of Trustees at which action on any corporate matter is taken shall be presumed to have assented to the action taken, unless he votes against such action or abstains from voting in respect thereto because of an asserted conflict of interest. I intend to enforce this point in the future. I do think all resolutions have been proposed at least once during a meeting. So, the consent stuff is valid. I would like to point out that "consent" procedure is a bit confusing. Usually, consent procedures are used during a real life board meeting, to automatically approve a resolution, without losing time to discuss it. For example, members may be provided in advance with a document to read, this document and the decisions associated are added to the agenda of the meeting. The document and its decisons are not discussed during the meeting, but automatically approved if board members do not specifically "oppose". As such, the "consent" is meant to "earn time" in not dealing with obvious approvals. Our resolution had a significantly different interest. It made it possible to simply have decisions taken, for it had become absolutely impossible to get votes from all board members. As long as we had to wait for everyone to vote, things were fully stuck. There are nearly no decisions with full voting right now. In some organizations, there are procedures to "remove" inactive board members (who do not assist to meetings or do not vote), so as to avoid blocking the process. This is not our case. Well, it would actually be embarassing to have such a procedure as often, the "inactive" board member is Jimbo. But whilst Jimbo does not always assist meetings and frequently does not vote, no one could conclude that he is inactive. He is active, but differently. However, the implication for me is that I have no incentive to make sure a resolution is indeed voted. If no one cares writing down a resolution, or if members do not vote, or if the quorum is not reach, then, no resolution. There is no action lever :-) Well, this was the visit in the "inside of the beast" :-) Anthere

Anthony wrote: I don't read that into it. It seems that it outlines a default situation for a company that has not paid attention to this. When inly two of seven directors live in the jurisdiction and one of those two is frequently on the road travelling, your reading of the provision would lead to an absurdity where having proper meetings would be virtually impossible without great expense. The travelling involves more than just travelling across the state line from Georgia. Such expense would be even more rediculous if the rule were applied to committees. "Proper" and "legal" are not synonymous. I think it's sufficient to require that such a consent be a majority of all directors as distinct from a majority of only those present at a meeting. Ec