Having been offline all day at an offsite, I'm going to lodge a stronger objection to this particular email vote. It took me 15 minutes just to read through the various messages to understand the thread. And the confusion is I think reflective of the lack of consensus of the board on this issue.
Lack of consensus itself is not a reason not to vote; sometimes it's the very reason to have one. But not an email vote - they are best used to formalize a board action on a decision that is unanimous or nearly unanimous without requiring a meeting. I'm not sure of the specifics of our bylaws, but on other boards on which I serve a email vote can only be held if no board member objects. In that case I object and request the Chair to call for a meeting. This is an important decision at this juncture for the OIDF and one we should hash out in person or on the phone. =Drummond > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Raj Mata > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] URGENT: New Board members motion > > -1. > > Agree with Gary. > > Raj > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Krall, Gary > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OpenID board] URGENT: New Board members motion > > -1. > > As we are actively in the process of recruiting for a Executive Director > which my understanding is should complete shortly coupled; with the > manner in which this vote has been requested/handled is a clear > indication to me that adding any additional members at this time would > not be prudent. > > Gary. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Dick Hardt > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 9:48 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [OpenID board] URGENT: New Board members motion > Importance: High > > > (this motion was originally posted on the board-private list to > protect the confidentiality of the potential corporate board members > -- reposting to public list to provide transparency to community) > > Background: > > There are two corporations that have expressed interest in joining the > OpenID Foundation for the last six months. The board approved adding 5 > new corporate board seats, to be balanced with community seats so that > the community seats have a majority. > Brian Kissel has been active on the marketing committee and the > customer research committee. He organized a gathering of content > providers in NY that led to the OpoenID UX summit last Monday. > The primary source of funding for the Foundation is corporate board > seats. In order to fund a new Executive Director and OpenID adoption > initiatives, we need more funding. The patience of the two > corporations is running thin as they have been waiting for far to long > for a decision from the board. > > The motion: Add the two corporate board seats and add Brian Kissel as > the community seat. Brian's seat (like all other community board > seats) would be up for re-election when we hold an election. > > All board members need to vote or abstain for the motion to be > considered. > > Votes to date: > > +1 Dick Hardt (made motion) > +1 Martin Atkins (seconded motion) > -1 David Recordon > _______________________________________________ > 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
