Re: Some comments (Jim Gettys) writes:

> I think the extreme case is to fire the board if it abuses what should
> be a limited thing, rather than too much prescription in advance of what
> they can or cannot do.  My opinion is that beyond saying that it be
> kept to a minimum nothing should go in the basic documents: I think this
> is a situation for case law, rather than constitution.

Basically, the situation will only improve with the board and not get worse.

Currently, keeping things confidental is more or less normal because there's
noone to which you can talk about them (except the steercom, of cause, but
officially the steercom is only a "group of people").

> There is the issue that anyone on the board should be expected to keep 
> confidentiality (or at least leave the discussions if they come up) in 
> matters brought to the board that way.  This is SOP in various organizations 
> (or how could you have confidential discussions in the first place).

It is also essential when you want to talk with people who're employed - no
matter at which company, almost every company in the world asks its empoyers
to keep things confidentally.

So the board will allow people to talk and not restrict them from doing so.

Martin Baulig (private) (work)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]