Apologies for not starting the motion on the public list. Given the
private nature of some of the information, private seemed best.
Later on I realized that the vote itself could be public -- so moved
the conversation here.
As for the amount of context -- there is lots of context to any vote
-- and the actual vote seems pretty straightforward to me.
DeWitt: have you conferred with other at Google and able to vote yet?
-- Dick
On 23-Oct-08, at 11:41 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
And as commentary, I'll add that while I applaud the use of the
public board list, and wholeheartedly support its continued use
going forward, I find it incredibly unorthodox to unilaterally move
an in-progress vote to the public list, particularly one where the
motion is partially redacted and requires so much context,
especially without any prior discussion with the rest of the board
about doing so.
That said, I'm all for moving future online votes to the public
list. Let's just do that up front, rather than doing it
unexpectedly midway through.
Cheers,
-DeWitt
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM, DeWitt Clinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thanks, Dick.
I ask both to clarify my own understanding, and because most of the
background was to board-private, and the people on the public board
list do not have the context to understand the vote in progress.
For observers, here's what I can recall that can be made public:
From the October 9th minutes (http://docs.google.com/View?id=dg3mt5r8_35f72k7hhg
):
Motion 2: Offer board seats to the companies that were previously
interested (making seven corporate members)
and nominate Brian Kissell to serve as an interim community member
until the next elections.
Proposed by Dick. Seconded by Johannes.
DeWitt and Gary objected on the grounds that this should wait until
the membership committee
has finished its proposal.
The membership committee will therefore make its proposal via email
next week and the board
will vote on it via email to avoid delaying progress until the next
full board meeting.
Motion 2 was therefore withdrawn.
On October 16th, Bill Washburn sent the membership committee
proposal to the board-private mailing list in a thread "Ranked
candidates for OIDF Board membership". There began a back-and-forth
dialog about how the candidates were ranked, and a discussion about
whether it was important that board members implement OpenID.
Opinions were expressed on both sides.
On October 21st, Dick Hardt reintroduced this motion to the board-
private list:
I motion that we accept [redacted] and [redacted] as coporate board
members and
add [redacted] (presuming he accepts) as a community board member.
[redacted]'s seat will come up for election at the next election.
(I additionally redacted the community member's name, as I don't
follow the logic of partial confidentiality.)
Martin seconded the motion.
I asked if the motion could be split into three separate
nominations. Dick replied no, that the motion stood as it was.
David voted -1 due to the "current ongoing discussion in the thread
titled "Ranked candidates for OIDF Board membership"".
This morning, this thread "URGENT: New Board members motion" began
on the public board list.
Before we move on; Dick and others, does this match your
recollection. Do you feel it provides sufficient context?
-DeWitt
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Dick Hardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
OMFG
The corporate names are in the board-private postings. I just posted
them again. This is the same motion I made at the last board meeting.
Read the rest of my emails about why the corporate names won't be
revealed until the corporations are ready to reveal them.
-- Dick
On 23-Oct-08, at 10:52 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
Dick,
Can we have a restatement of the exact motion on the table,
please? There is clearly some confusion here.
Also, a couple of procedural questions:
1) Why were the corporate names withheld, but not the community
member's?
2) Will the corporate names be revealed at the conclusion of the
vote?
-DeWitt
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
David Recordon wrote:
> This motion is about adding two companies, the prior one was about
> adding one specific company. I support adding two additional
companies
> though as explained on the list not the one specific one in the
prior
> motion.
>
The motion that I seconded specified two specific corporate board
members. I think we're thinking of different motions.
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
[email protected]
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
