On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Joel Madero <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I'm wondering if this would cause a "group think" mentality within the BoD. > I know that if a name is public, being the only dissenter might dissuade a > current or future BoD from dissenting.
Dissenting are usually not expressed at the vote level, but usually during the discussion prior to the vote. more often than not the vote reflect the consensus... > Ultimately I'm wondering how much > adding names helps the project move forward. As I said earlier. in a representative system the 'representee' need to have a way to make an educated decision to choose the ones representing them. The voting record of an incumbent candidate is an important piece of information with that regard. > I know that we adhere to a very > open policy but with voting, sometimes anonymous really encourages the best > deliberation. Not withstanding the fact that our statute call for public BoD meeting, except for limited cases, in any case voting _is_ public. The information is already mostly there... just not in a form that is easy for the membership to process. Some vote occurs online, some other occurs on public conference call... on rare occasion there can be vote during in-person meeting of the BoD in any case the result of such vote are posted on the ML. The only proposed difference is that these 'result' be a bit more complete as to allow the membership to get a better picture of what their representatives are doing... and since they do vote for individual and not a 'group', the voting record of each BoD member is important. Beside adding the name would also provide a easier, less error prone, for each BoD member and interested observer, to make sure that the 'minutes' are correct, at least wrt the voting record. (it is easier to detect that your name is in the wrong column, rather than deduce that based on the Yeah/Nay count) And yes... the vast majority of votes are unanimous... that is expected since most of the votes are not controversial in nature, and a well functioning BoD would search for a consensus before getting to a vote... iow function primarily as a consensus based entity not a 'majority rule' entity. But if that good pattern where to be disrupted in the future, the Board of Trustee (the members) will have to try to remedy things at the following election, and again, the voting record in this scenario would be a useful tool to make an educated decision. It is better/easier to establish 'good practice' and 'precedent' while we have well functioning institutions. Norbert
