> We (well, I) don't. But if they are wrong, and the law forbids any
> non-voice conferencing, it seems quite discriminatory to me (for
> instance it means no one with a speech or hearing disability can serve
> on the board) and I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged.
>
> In light of this, are we sure we want the foundation incorporated in
> Pennsylvania? Clearly we want to be able to have IRC meetings (it's
> even written in the bylaws), is there some benefit in being in PA that
> trumps this?
>
> L.
Absolutely agree - it seems to me, that in our case, using audio-focused way of
Communicating will decrease productivity of Board a lot (much less thing
"talked out" in given timeframe of meeting), not to mention problems like audio
disortions over lower quality connection access of some members, fact, that
more people are fluent on english writing (as opposed to speaking), and
mentioned disabilities.
Can't it be resolved, by simply meeting via preffered method (IRC for examle),
and then "legalising" decisions by summary meeting over audio? This way, all
things leading to decisions, would be made using "productive" way of
communicating, yet, everything required by law, would be then (re)proposed and
agreed on (short) sound-only meetings.
What PA based lawyer will tell about that? Leag! Feasible?
/Estel
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
