Re: [board-discuss] Re: Joining Silicon Sentier
I understand your concerns. However, I second Thorsten's thoughts here, that for an entity built up as TDF, and for the way we act, the intended meaning of § 5 is suitable. Let's see how things develop in the future. We can always adjust the rules of procedure should we see things don't work as intended or expected. +1 :) I think that guessing at what future problems might occur creates a lot of tension or at least has the potential of that. If a situation comes up where there's a clear problem, then I say modify as needed. I don't think saying this is how others do it is enough of a reason to change something. Best Regards, Joel -- *Joel Madero* LibO QA Volunteer jmadero@gmail.com
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Joining Silicon Sentier
Hi Marc, Marc Paré wrote on 2013-01-24 05:25: While I agree totally with joining Silicon Sentier, I was wondering how the BoD can run a vote when there is no quorum reached for the meeting? Are business for the meeting not cancelled and must be re-scheduled for proper discussion at a future meeting with quorum? Is the application of the BoD § 5 I rule not for only votes taken when a quorum is reached? It just seems strange to allow voting like this. this is the intention of the § 5 rules of procedure. It is designed that board members who are not active and miss voting, cannot block the foundation's business. To make that happen, and avoid abuse, this paragraph is limited on daily business, has a two business day waiting rule, and is limited to costs of 500 €. In a perfect world, all board members would vote within one business day, but this time, it seems this was not possible. Luckily, it was the first time, most of the board did not vote, and I hope it remains an exception, for sure. Florian
Re: [board-discuss] Re: Joining Silicon Sentier
Florian Effenberger wrote: Is the application of the BoD § 5 I rule not for only votes taken when a quorum is reached? It just seems strange to allow voting like this. this is the intention of the § 5 rules of procedure. It is designed that board members who are not active and miss voting, cannot block the foundation's business. Hi Marc, I second Florian here, and since I was the one putting that rule into https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules, let me put some more rationale behind it. TDF is not like the usual foundation, with the board living in the same city, or some executive director plus team sitting in the same office. So far, decision making, even over trivial amounts, always happens at the board level, and thus requires a team of seven spread across the world to react timely, mostly on email. §5 was meant to balance this - the board members trust each other enough, that we believe a director proposing something and calling a vote presumably knows what he or she is doing. The rule simply codifies that, but puts a (IMO reasonable) limit on the importance level of such-decided items. Cheers, -- Thorsten signature.asc Description: Digital signature
