On Tue, 2018-04-17 at 19:09 -0700, Cosimo Cecchi wrote:
> We discussed the topic of Events Code of Conduct during today's board
> meeting.
>
> The board intends to consider your motion separately from the Code of
> Conduct that was proposed by the working group; we will soon proceed
> to seek membership consultation on the working group proposal.
I think my stance is quite clear. As Allan stated quite literally, he
continued working on the Draft without including the rest of the WG in
this work. Regardless of whether Allan was acting as a board member or
chairman of the WG, he has overstepped his authority by doing so. As
such, I do not consider the current documents to be a legitimate
proposal from the WG that the board could even start to consider.
It seems to me that Allan and Neil are free to
take the (public) draft and amend it any way they like without
consulting the rest of the working group, as long as they don't
misrepresent it as a product of the working group. As would you or I,
for that matter, be free to do.
And, although I'm not familiar enough with the bylaws to say for sure what applies in this case, it also seems to me that since the board can delegate responsibilities to committees, the board can also rescind them — for example, if they feel that a committee is no longer capable of fulfilling them, which seems to be the case here. I have no idea what the board intends to do, but as far as I can tell, they are not obligated to consider the working group's proposal.
In the end, the board was elected by us, the working group was not, so it's up to the board to do what they feel best represents the foundation members' interests. I don't see any overstep of authority here. This particular foundation member's interest lies in adopting a code of conduct sooner rather than later, and not in voting in a referendum forced because of a never-explained personality conflict.
Regards,
Philip C
