[Foundation-l] thoughts on leakages

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

On 1/11/08, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> > I am sorry, but the minutes of the meeting do not square with what you
> > say there. According to the minutes - while there may not have been
> > consensus - there was a clear majority vote in favour of setting a
> > symmetrical 6 month exlusion period for transitions both board -> staff
> > and staff -> board.
>
> Actually, my memory of the discussion was that Jan-Bart was more in
> favor of a 12 months waiting period... but the minutes report 6
> months... which means at least 2 members were not fully happy. And
> Jimbo's opinion was missing.
> In any cases, we tend to try to reach consensus when it is seems best
> to. There was a weak consensus or a slight disagreement.

Okay, just out of curiosity here, maybe I am dredging out something you
might not want to revisit, but I recall Angela resigning from the board,
because she was disillusioned with the way the board was in fact quite
decidedly steered away from consensus driven decision making.

Can we now construe this statement by you, Florence Devouard, that
steering away from consensus driven decision making on the board was
a mistake?

> > 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.
>
> I have vague memories. I think Mike recommanded to have it a bylaws
> update.Yes Note that voting a resolution can be real quick and
> straightforward. Bylaws update is a little bit more demanding.

Well, this is very not clear, as you can well imagine. Maybe in addition
of minutes, you should make private notes, so your memories are not
so vague. The order of events here is very important, and quite decidedly
obfuscated in the preceding paragraph.

Was Erik tasked with drafting a resolution, or was Erik tasked with asking
Mike how and/or if such a resolution could be drafted, and or what happened
after that... really, I can ascribe many possible chains of events that square
well with people doing their best to clarify the situation, but vague statements
don't improve my ability to believe any one of them actually took place.

> >
> > I think you got EC:s suggestion backwards. His idea was that the board
> > would propose and decide, but the council would approve. It isn't implicit
> > what would happen if the council would vote down a decided change in
> > the bylaws. As I see it, the disapproval would not mean the change could
> > not be implemented by the board, but it might usefully force the board
> > to reconsider, and re-vote on it. This is a very usual parliamentary
> custom.
>
> ok
> I think it would put a very huge pressure on the wikicouncil constitution...

Well, I think the question is do you really want a wikicouncil, or a
wikipoodle?


--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]