On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Simon Phipps wrote: > > 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.
+1. And to throw in 2 more cents: I think it's safe to assume that the prevention of OGB-Paralysis -- like what resulted from the inflexibility demonstrated at today's meeting due to the invocation of a strict intepretation of the letter of section 6.7 -- is a very strong and universal desire. Therefore an agile resolution (read non-complex, non-resource-intensive, and, perhaps, non-perfect resolution) to this issue is called for. Eric
