Despite the situation surrounding notes being posted or not and notwithstanding previous explanations of this fact, the basic tenet here is that we are not following our own rules. Siu has a point.
Insofar as not posting minutes in a timely fashion, we should be actively working to conclude the matter at hand with some sort of official response from the board and a resumption of adhering to posting meeting notes. Realising that the issue surrounding AssentWorks is a delicate one, the board should expect a certain degree of "executive freedom," exercised with the understanding that their actions are for "the good of the organisation." We should all be mindful of this and be assured that the board is indeed acting in the best interests of SkullSpace. Finding a good balance between transparency and "executive freedom" is our priority. Could the members of the board please outline their intentions concerning the rectification of these issues? Thanks, ~Justin On 29 January 2013 18:31, Roswyne <[email protected]> wrote: > Fair enough criticism. It's possible you're not personally aware of all > the steps I've taken to date to find out what's happened at the many > meetings I've missed over the past few months. Frankly, I've been asking so > long, that I'm not sure of them all either... But I know I spoke to at > least three board members, and was "white lied" to at least once on Discuss > ("they're still being edited"), and told by another board member that they > "couldn't remember anything important happening". > > Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right, but they go a long way towards > understanding why someone's behaviour may be "so far beyond the pale". > > > So what is the appropriate method of requesting that we resume posting > meeting minutes, as we always used to? > > As far as I know, they are standardly required at official meetings, of > which our bylaws say we must have at least every other week. They may not > have to be available to non-members, but should be available to all members > on request. Their contents are not a secret: if you want it secret, don't > discuss it at a public meeting. > > Taking and sharing minutes on request should never have stopped. Even to > stop posting them as usual should have required a members vote, which would > need to be announced in advance, and then the results announced as well. > > On Jan 29, 2013 4:30 PM, "Jay Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Roswyne <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Oh. See, I thought I was joking. Apparently the truth is weirder than my >> > imagination? >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior >> >> Your concerns are valid. Your approach however, continues to be so far >> beyond the pale that I wonder if you're intentionally trying to test >> our definition of being excellent to other members. Normally I don't >> make a habit of publicly criticizing the behavior of members, but I >> want all involved to understand that this is not an acceptable and >> welcoming method of discussing your concerns. >> _______________________________________________ >> SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List >> Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss >> Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List > Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss > Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/ >
_______________________________________________ SkullSpace Discuss Mailing List Help: http://www.skullspace.ca/wiki/index.php/Mailing_List#Discuss Archive: https://groups.google.com/group/skullspace-discuss-archive/
