Leo Simons wrote:
On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 14:01, Stephen McConnell wrote:I was waiting for this reply!
Leo Simons wrote:
"layman" version of the text below; I think this is for all practicalThe text (for all practical purposes) is the same as the proposal.
purposes the same but it reads a little easier (the trick: use a
1000-word vocabulary ;). If it is indeed the same for practical purposes
(Steve?) then I'm happy with the proposal I think.
Gotcha! You've fallen into my simplicity trap :D
Gotcha! You've fallen into my ratiuonalization trap
:-D
The board has a legal structure it has put in place together with a set of policies and procedures through which it can administer itself and a manner accountable to the general public. Within the structure and procedures and provisions for the establishment of a sub-structure call a PMC. These PMCs provide a mechanism for the Board to scale their activities. The PMC structure is in effect a delegation of the Board authority to PMC to undertake due-diligence within a particular scope. The decisions taken by the PMC are decisions that are binding on the board. For example, if the Avalon PMC votes to release a product, this represents a liability on the ASF. This action is communicated to board by the Chair, and documented in a formal voting process.If - it is for all practical purposes the same, - this documentation is not required to have a watertight legal status, - the "layman" form is easier to read and understand, then why not just write the documentation this way and forget about the formal 'look-n-feel'?
Now, just for a moment, let's assume that ASF get hit with a law suite concerning an infringement on patents related to something which was developed within the Avalon community. Lets assume that Greg and Sam take a holiday, and were dealing with someone unknown. And let's also assume that ASF have two options: (a) fight the case, or (b) denial.
If ASF chooses to fight the case, they will very happy to see lots of formal documentation about processes, and they will be wetting themselves if see documentation for all of the votes on releases, attention to due diligence, etc. They will use this information to demonstrate that our actions have been public, have been part of the legal structure of the board, are consistent with the Board's legal practices, etc. In effect ASF will have everything they need to fight on our behalf.
On the other-hand - what about the denial avenue. If our policies and procedures are not up to the same standard as the Boards, (e.g. the textual version) what we are doing is in effect enabling different interpretations of the rules. The organization making a claim against ASF will look into the policies and procedures of the Avalon PMC - and will do so with attention to detail. In such a scenario, the case for ASF would be weaker because its framework of due-diligence has been compromised. In such a scenario there is the potential for the ASF to deny us some level of protection otherwise available to us.
Bottom line - by maintaining policies and procedures in a "crisp" form (legalistic, SOC, whatever you want to call it), your providing the Board with a more concrete foundation though which they can protect our interests with greater confidence and integrity.This is exactly the sort of thing I would image on a web page that descibes the policies and procedures concerning decision making. That same web page would also provide a link to the formal document.What purpose does the "formal" document then serve?
I think no-one 'll
be reading it anyway.
Hopefully no-one. ;-) Cheers, Steve.
cheers,
- Leo
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
