On Apr 5, 2007, at 00:15, Keith M Wesolowski wrote: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 04:00:49PM -0700, Ben Rockwood wrote: > >> OGB Meetings should be open, but in any meeting its irregular for >> observers to be involved. By that rationale I would suggest that so >> long as actual dialog of the meeting, unedited, is available for >> public >> review it fits the criteria for "open meeting". Making an audio >> recording of the meeting available following each would be >> something I'd >> appreciate. > > Most governing body meetings have a time set aside after business is > concluded for non-actionable questions from the audience. This might > be nice to provide. It's unclear to me whether providing a recording > would satisfy the letter of section 6.7; it depends on the definitions > of 'participate' and 'attend.' This does seem like a good idea > anyway, since not everyone is likely to be able to attend live even if > the technical problems were solved.
I'd suggest these terms (like the rest of the Constitution) are the OGB's to interpret in such a way that you can actually conduct business. Flexibility trumps legalism every time, especially during this bootstrapping process. It was never the intent of the Constitution that meetings should be impossible to hold and frankly I am surprised and dismayed by the outcome recorded in the minutes. These minutes and the discussion accompanying them are allowing me to "attend and participate" for example. S.
