Keith M Wesolowski wrote: >> I'm sorry, but it is unacceptable that the proposal has been changed >> without consulting the group/person who drafted it, and then approved by >> the OGB. > > The only significant change we approved was already discussed on-list. > Apparently a majority of board members didn't believe you addressed > the concerns to our satisfaction, or that addressing those concerns > was impossible without changes. The official minutes will reflect the > changes and the votes taken to approve them.
I sent a revised draft to the OGB on 29th November. I received no feedback from the OGB on that draft. It is unacceptable that nobody in the OGB voiced any issues with the draft, and then during the meeting decided that they wanted to change and vote on the document without any discussion with the drafter. The fact that you voted on making changes during your meeting is completely irrelevant - I haven't agreed to them. When the formal minutes arrive I will examine them and decide on what amendments may be required, and resubmit the draft for approval. I have no firm timescale for such a resubmittal, I may defer to after the OGB elections, or alternatively I may just drop the idea entirely. >> If the OGB wants changes, it needs to reject the proposal, providing the >> reasoning for doing so, and a list of proposed amendments. Otherwise it >> is effectively imposing terms on the proposed CG that the CG has had no >> opportunity to discuss. > > At one point, a board member noted that he'd "feel better if Alan were > here." I agree with whomever made this comment. Meetings are public > and open to all, and an agenda including this item was published in > advance. I understand that the meeting time is not ideal given your > location; if you had asked us to schedule a special hearing so that > you could attend, I suppose we would have agreed. And if any board > member had believed that a separate opportunity for additional comment > would have changed the outcome, he could have moved to postpone; no > one did, and the official minutes will reflect that as well. Whatever, as I said the vote is irrelevant. > While I can't speak for the other members who voted for the amendment, > I can tell you that I will never vote to delegate editorial control - > as distinguished from layout, navigation, style, and backend > management - of shared content to any CG. I made clear my objections > to that on-list and during debate on the call. The OGB has already > taken a decision to solve that problem is a different way. That assertion makes no sense. By setting up a Board Committee you've done exactly that - you've delegated authority. And as for 'solving the problem', has the OGB actually appointed anybody to the Board yet? Or is it yet another instance of the OGB making a decision about something and then failing to implement it? -- Alan Burlison --
