[Foundation-l] PD in Israel
saintonge at telus.net
Tue May 8 08:47:53 UTC 2007
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
>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. ;-)
More information about the foundation-l