[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Anthony]

On Jan 10, 2008 11:13 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> And (also by the text of the minutes that is published - seems there are some
> edits there that are discussing later developements rather than what transpired
> at the meeting itself; which is probably illustrative in a positive
> fashion, even
> though it confuses the text of the minutes as a document of a specific event)
> specifically Erik was tasked with drafting the resolution; which after inquiring
> with Mike, (someone, not clear who) decided that it was a bylaws matter, not
> a resolution matter.
>
Well, it would make no sense as a resolution matter to ban former
employees from becoming board members (for a certain period of time
following their employment).  The board has to have a majority vote to
install new board members anyway, so that same majority could just
repeal the resolution.  To have any effectiveness at all this would
have to be in the bylaws.

That said, the opposite move, banning former board members from
becoming employees (for a certain period of time following their board
membership), would at least have some effect as a resolution, as it
would at least bar such things from happening without the explicit
approval of the board.

> If there has been a subsequent decision to not implement the voted on
> decision even as a bylaws change, that is regrettably in the utmost. A real
> step backwards in clarifying things between the roles of staff and board.
>
Well, I think the recent events have shown that such a bylaws change
would hinder the ability of the Foundation to structure itself most
efficiently, so I'd say such a change of view would be fortunate,
rather than regrettable.  OTOH, I haven't heard any of the board
members, or even Erik himself, say that their view on this rule has
changed.