Yes, completly agreed with this. Glad this is public, though was very clearly confused when it happened. :)
--- Sent from my iPhone Classic. On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:44 AM, "Chris Messina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1. > > Of course it's the job of the board to make semi-unilateral decisions > regarding the OIDF, but the current flow of conversation is both > confusing and alarming, especially without context. > > Thanks Dewitt for trying to capture the state of the conversation and > provide the path for the current debate/discussion even if I'm unable > to vote. ;) > > Chris > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM, DeWitt Clinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> And as commentary, I'll add that while I applaud the use of the >> public board >> list, and wholeheartedly support its continued use going forward, I >> find it >> incredibly unorthodox to unilaterally move an in-progress vote to >> the >> public list, particularly one where the motion is partially >> redacted and >> requires so much context, especially without any prior discussion >> with the >> rest of the board about doing so. >> >> That said, I'm all for moving future online votes to the public >> list. Let's >> just do that up front, rather than doing it unexpectedly midway >> through. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -DeWitt >> >> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM, DeWitt Clinton >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> 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 Board >>> membership". 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 >> >> > > > > -- > Chris Messina > Citizen-Participant & > Open Technology Advocate-at-Large > factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org > citizenagency.com # vidoop.com > This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private > _______________________________________________ > board mailing list > [email protected] > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
