On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Stephen Lau wrote: > If we're all present by email, and have all cast a vote and made > our opposing viewpoint heard - what is the difference between > whether it's heard by email or phone?
Because people never write the same way that they talk. You wouldn't believe how many people have told me that I am a completely different person in email than I am in person, and it had absolutely nothing to do with my opinions. People are simply more open-minded and happy during a verbal conversation, for better or worse. Boards are specifically designed to promote a certain type of communication because the other types can be accomplished without a board. I should emphasize that those decisions are only the formal side of the OGB. There is no reason to make formal decisions all the time. All of the work that leads up to a proposal that eventually gets voted upon is done (hopefully) long before a formal decision is made, and it is completely reasonable to do all that via email. And, as you will find, the vast majority of board decisions will be unanimous anyway. > I'd almost rather hear it by email since it gives me time to > properly think about it and ruminate rather than being rushed into > a vote over the phone. Yes, and as a technologist I would agree with you, but those rules are intended for the extremely rare events when the sh*t hits the fan and the board as a whole must protect itself from outsiders who later claim that the board did not follow due process in making a decision, where due process is defined to be "the same as every other board". As I said, that case is not applicable to the current OGB, so it will come across as useless administrative overhead (because the real world is not an OGB concern at the moment). > ... > I see your point (and thank you for offering it), but I guess I > have to disagree. It seems silly and merely process-serving to > always record a formal vote at every phone meeting. > > But I've never been a huge fan of politics and unnecessary process; > so maybe that's just me. Nobody is a huge fan of politics and unnecessary process. Reasonable people do disagree on the trade-off point between useful and useless process, and the constitution is based on formal corporate bylaws written by a software lawyer (in cooperation with a very unmanageable and opinionated group of hard core software folks) and hence is very conservative regarding that tradeoff. In a properly working organization, the bylaws are only referred to during the times of major organizational splits. Its purpose is to resolve arguments that cannot be resolved in any other way, not to act like computer code that needs to be run in order to get any outputs. You should feel free to disagree with that process, and to find the best ways to get things done as you see fit for almost everything you need to accomplish, but always keep in mind that the formal process can be called upon by any board member during the very rare times when there is a significant disagreement. It is only then that you will find comfort in the fact that the process for reaching a decision was approved before the argument began. ....Roy
