Thanks, Dick. I ask both to clarify my own understanding, and because most of the background was to board-private, and the people on the public board list do not have the context to understand the vote in progress.
For observers, here's what I can recall that can be made public: >From the October 9th minutes ( http://docs.google.com/View?id=dg3mt5r8_35f72k7hhg): > Motion 2: Offer board seats to the companies that were previously interested > (making seven corporate members) > and nominate Brian Kissell to serve as an interim community member until the > next elections. > > Proposed by Dick. Seconded by Johannes. > > DeWitt and Gary objected on the grounds that this should wait until the > membership committee > has finished its proposal. > > The membership committee will therefore make its proposal via email next week > and the board > will vote on it via email to avoid delaying progress until the next full > board meeting. > Motion 2 was therefore withdrawn. > > On October 16th, Bill Washburn sent the membership committee proposal to the board-private mailing list in a thread "Ranked candidates for OIDF Boardmembership". There began a back-and-forth dialog about how the candidates were ranked, and a discussion about whether it was important that board members implement OpenID. Opinions were expressed on both sides. On October 21st, Dick Hardt reintroduced this motion to the board-private list: I motion that we accept [redacted] and [redacted] as coporate board members > and > add [redacted] (presuming he accepts) as a community board member. > [redacted]'s seat will come up for election at the next election. > (I additionally redacted the community member's name, as I don't follow the logic of partial confidentiality.) Martin seconded the motion. I asked if the motion could be split into three separate nominations. Dick replied no, that the motion stood as it was. David voted -1 due to the "current ongoing discussion in the thread titled "Ranked candidates for OIDF Board membership"". This morning, this thread "URGENT: New Board members motion" began on the public board list. Before we move on; Dick and others, does this match your recollection. Do you feel it provides sufficient context? -DeWitt On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Dick Hardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OMFG > The corporate names are in the board-private postings. I just posted them > again. This is the same motion I made at the last board meeting. > > Read the rest of my emails about why the corporate names won't be revealed > until the corporations are ready to reveal them. > > -- Dick > > On 23-Oct-08, at 10:52 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote: > > Dick, > > Can we have a restatement of the exact motion on the table, please? There > is clearly some confusion here. > > Also, a couple of procedural questions: > > 1) Why were the corporate names withheld, but not the community member's? > > 2) Will the corporate names be revealed at the conclusion of the vote? > > -DeWitt > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> David Recordon wrote: >> > This motion is about adding two companies, the prior one was about >> > adding one specific company. I support adding two additional companies >> > though as explained on the list not the one specific one in the prior >> > motion. >> > >> >> The motion that I seconded specified two specific corporate board >> members. I think we're thinking of different motions. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> board mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board >> > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > > > > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board > >
_______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
