On 21 June 2016 at 11:56, Sean DALY wrote:
> an agreed upon partnership placed under publication embargo. SL wouldn't
> likely need to embargo, but a partner might wish to. This PR-smart approach
> has been transformed by the Internet and social media these past few years,
>
On 21 June 2016 at 11:41, Adam Holt wrote:
> it's generally a legal/fiduciary responsibility of the Executive Director
> (or similar) to consult privately with the Board in these kinds of
> high-stakes situations -- keeping as many as possible apprised of
> deliberations -- while
On 21 June 2016 at 10:49, Walter Bender wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland wrote:
>>>
>>> Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent
>>> to
Hi, Adam
I don't think this is relevant to this motion. Clearly, if such a
negotiation were to happen, the Board could move to consider the
matter in 'executive session'. In the meantime, there is no reason not
to make votes public (and the discussion of them in the meetings
which is already
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Walter Bender
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
>> SLOB.
>>
>> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Hi
>
> I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
> SLOB.
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
>> Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they