> Also disturbing is this comment from Esther Dyson's letter to Becky Burr:
>
> This Board personifies effective
> consensus decision-making, and many of its members feel that losing the
> ability to discuss matters in decisional meetings in private will adversely
> affect the candor of those discussions, and potentially the ability to come
> to working consensus quickly, especially on some of the very complicated
> issues that remain for this Board to deal with.
Oh, the poor, poor board members.
Openness was part of the job of being a board member from the outset. If
a board member can not live with making decisions in an open, transparent,
and accountable manner, then that board member should have not accepted in
the first place and should step down immediately.
One has to wonder what kind of discussions are taking place that the board
members feel embarrassed to disclose.
I can guess -- the setting of Robert's pay at $18,000 per month, the
decision to have ten highly paid managers to oversee the work of four
low pay employees, the decision to pack the DNSO with commercial interests
and reject non-commercial and individuals, the decision to remove the
right of individuals to participate at parity with organizations in the
SOs, etc etc.
I know that I'd be embarrassed to have people know that I voted for things
like that. But of course, since all the decisions were unanimous, we know
who voted for these egregious things anyway.
But we don't know why.
--karl--
