[Foundation-l] PD in Israel

[Ray Saintonge]

Florence Devouard wrote:

>Thomas Dalton wrote:
>  
>
>>>Just as I was clicking on "send", another member who had not spoken yet,
>>>gave its opinion, which fully contradicts the 3 other ones opinion :-)
>>>      
>>>
>>Is it really wise to speak for the board when you've only consulted 3
>>members? I don't know what the quorum is, but I'm sure it's more than
>>3.
>>    
>>
>Plus my opinion, makes 4. That makes a quorum.
>I will mention that I did not consult ONLY 3 people, I never do that. I 
>ask all of them. They can answer or not answer.
>
>And yes, that outlines that there should be a deadline to answer a 
>question/gives an opinion.
>
Why should you need a deadline?  Is it your demand or someone else's?

>I increasingly have a problem of incompatibility of
>* on one hand, the desire of the community, of the staff, of potential 
>partners, of journalists, etc... to always have an answer as soon as 
>possible, preferably yesterday
>
>* on the other hand, an increasing requirement for procedures, with 
>written statements (resolutions - which needs to be written by someone), 
>delay requirements for calling a meeting (10 days minimum), quorum 
>(which implies board members should be very frequently available to 
>assist most meetings)
>
>The internet flexibility does not fit well with bureaucratic requirements.
>
Yep!  We need to find new ways of doing things.

>A recent example for me was the DVD key issue. I got several emails of 
>people requesting a Foundation feedback during the night. When I got 
>online, more requests on irc and by skype. Request was made to 
>immediately provide the position of the Foundation on the DVD matter.
>
>Right. So, first collect the information (what is that key story anyway 
>?). Then find a lawyer. Ask for an opinion. Wait for the feedback. Write 
>to board members and ask their opinion. Wait for the answers. Read 
>further emails received from english admin asking Foundation position 
>ASAP. Wait for USA to wake up. Then collect 2 comments. Wonder if two 
>comments are sufficient to represent Foundation opinion. Wait more ? 1 
>hour ? 4 hours ? Consider feedback sufficient in spite of no quorum ? 
>Write down a resolution and call for a meeting in 10 days ? Hope 4 
>people will be there to vote ?
>
Tell them that you will answer in a week or two ...... maybe.  Your 
reaction is very maternal.  It is a mother's instinct to want all her 
children to be safe, but when those children number in the thousands you 
are soon confronted with your limitations.

>I am partly joking. But only partly. Some people will complain I did not 
>give enough time to give a feedback. Others that the Foundation is 
>becoming a heavy machine unable to make decisions. Both will be correct 
>probably. Another solution to speed up process would be to make 
>decisions alone and speak in the name of the board (which is probably 
>legal), which would be said to be power abuse. 
>
SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.  Don't become captive to the 
panic of others.

>Nothing's ever perfect :-)
>
I don't even expect that of you. ;-)

Ec