Dear all,

In the past week, I have been reflecting a bit. A lot has happened, and there was a lot of constructive (and some less constructive) discussion. I always value it if the community appears to be able to give additional arguments, both pro and contra, and is able to intelligently exchange thoughts and ideas.

However, after all this reading work on the foundation-l, things are a little dizzy to me. There is a looong email of Florence still ahead (thanks for that, btw) so I think it is best to write down my dizzy thoughts before moving on to the next topic.

I would like to seperate the discussions about the Volunteer Council and the Board restructuring process, as I beleive they only have indirect relations.

About the Board Restructuring Process, I asked the board members coming from the community to give their reply to my email, and to state their view on the community's involvement. I have seen a reply of some of these board members, and I would like to urge at least Kat and Frieda (both community representatives on the Board) to give their views too. (Jimmy, you might want to give your view too, as at the end, you're the one being around the longest ;-) )

The replies I saw were although somewhat diplomatic, not very clear to me on whatwe should do next time. Florence uses the argument that she did talk with some people about it. Although I do not have a clou who might have been that, I take that for obvious. It was the least I expected actually, I should have worded more carefully. I am glad though that she seems to admit that it is better to take it to the broader community too, and I certainly hope she will do that more often in the future. However, I have to say immediately that she is the board member doing this the most *by far* and I am grateful for that. Please note that they are not at all in vain, I've seen several times that even if a question goes unanswered, it does get discussed in seperate channels.

But I will immediately agree with you if you state that the foundation-l is not always a good option to reach out to the community, and I think it would be good if other options were explored and exploited. I personally think that elections are an excellent way of receiving feedback for instance, which could make a good argument to have elections every year. To discuss with the community every year.

Michael seems to mainly point out how hard it is to get useful feedback, and I have to admit that in some cases he has a point. However, in my opinion he choose a wrong example. I think that the case of the Volunteer Council was a *good* example of getting feedback. Although it was not always feedback I read happely, it did contain a lot of useful arguments and positions. And if that feedback would have come in an earlier stage, and not after I submitted the resolution, I would certainly have taken some of it into account.

Also this time about the restructuring I think there is a lot of useful feedback. Although it is hard to admit sometimes once you've drafted something, criticism might be just and right, and if you have the chance, I think you should take it granted and try to adjust to it if fair. I do not say we should poll on every single subject, but if we stand for quite big decisions, I do think that we should ask the community for arguments, criticism and to shoot on it. It is never an easy process, even hard now and then. But at the end, I am convinced that there are benifits.

Domas also replied to my email, although mainly on the content of the resolution, while my post was mainly directed to the followed (or not followed) procedure. I hope certainly that Domas is willing to elaborate his views on that too.

Finally, Jimmy made a few comments, also mainly in line of the ongoing discussion. Jimmy, I hope you will be willing to give your view as well on the community feedback. I recall still your promise in the past that if Angela and Florence would agree on a topic, you would support their side. I have never fully figured out whether you mentioned that because you thought that they disagreed so often under normal conditions, that it had to be very important if they agreed, or that you just valued the community representatives very high. I always assumed the latter, and one thing in this situation that wonders me is whether you still stand with that statement and maybe even would like to renew it. If all community representatives would agree on something (all three of them in this case) would you still give your support to them?

Again, I hope that Frieda and Kat will read this as well, and can find some time to reply to my earlier stated questions and remarks. (I explicitely put Frieda, Kat and Jimmy in cc:, so I hope they will see it) Thanks a lot in advance!

One thing which is substantial I would like to propose. Currently (or in the past, the new bylaws are still not online), the bylaws state the following provision:

"Section 1. Amendment.

These bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular meeting or special meeting, provided that at least ten days written notice is given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws at such meeting."

I would like to propose to change that, legally or at least intentionally, to something along the lines of "Section 1. Amendment.

These bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted by a majority of the entire Board of Trustees at any regular meeting or special meeting, provided that at least ten days written notice is given of intention to alter, amend or repeal or to adopt new Bylaws at such meeting both to the members and on the Foundations website."

Of course this would be at least an assurence to the community that bylaw changes would not go unnoticed and without discussion (again, the Board is, at least legally, not bound to the outcome of those discussions, but could use the arguments). It would cost hardly any extra time in the process, but it would maybe help the Board some extra to stay aware of the community and their looks on certain things.

Of course I expect the same personally on any big changes regarding the community, but this is the easiest to lay down without any legal implications of any kind (Mike, could you confirm this please?).

With kind regards,

Lodewijk