Alan Coopersmith wrote: > I actually feel some of the formalism we've adopted lately is leading > to worse decision making as we don't discuss these things as well as > we did before, and when questions came up in the middle of the vote, > they were ruled as out of order and never re-addressed. (Specifically, > when Keith & Rich voted "No", was that because you felt more discussion > was needed, that we should consider another action, or because you agreed > with the proposal to dissolve?) And I know Ben is annoyed that at the > end of the meeting, no one formally moved to adopt his proposal, so we > didn't even discuss whether we were just out of time for that meeting, > thought it was premature given the trademark policy discussion going on > elsewhere, or just plain a bad idea. >
The "formality" of PO is to ensure rights, not take them away. It serves to achieve 3 primary goals: 1) Everyones voice is heard, no one is left without having a hand in things. Whether its voting on a primary motion to approve a community group or a motion to adjurn the meeting, everyones voice is heard, equally. 2) To provide some structure and order to what can be highly disorganized. Look at meetings in the past of both the CAB and OGB, things got forgotten, actions didn't follow through, and there was generally no decisions made on anything, whether adopting a position, moving through an important approval action, or even deciding on when to start or stop meeting. 3) To ensure that everyone is clear on what is being decided and given ample opportunity to ask questions, present arguments to the whole body, and to have an orderly and constructive debate. When the chair asks "Unless anyone objects we will now close discussion and vote on the motion" thats your time to pipe up. This is not aimed at Alan but the board as a whole. My great hope is that with a little order things might get rolling along more smoothly. Lets just consider my motion before the board... no one would even lift a voice to DEBATE the motion. Seven people, given ample time, 20 seconds of dead air on the line at least, and no one cared to even touch it. PO did its job, its very clear where the board as a whole stands, I know and the world knows based on the minutes. Am I upset with the systems? No, absolutely not. Am I irritated that the board, who supposedly wants solutions to this whole trademark debacle, was unwilling to discuss the sole attempt, right or wrong, good or bad, to provide a solution? Yes. If the board wants to pull straws, so be it, but the fact is that on the last call more time was spent discussing when to move the call than any other matter during the call, and it is the only topic in which all present members contributed. The facts stand on their own. This body is not dealing the business at hand, it is not acting to uphold and adhere to the constitution, nor is it moving to strike down that constitution. If the OGB's goal is to continue to beat on the old dead horse "court of last resort" and do nothing constructive, then congrats, we're hitting the marks. For crying out loud, even a request to create a committee to do the work that the OGB should be doing wasn't handled.... some one tell me what we're supposed to think. benr.
