Hi, On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 18:37 -0700, philip chimento gmail com wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 4:55 AM Benjamin Berg <benjamin sipsolutions net> wrote:On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 18:08 -0700, philip chimento gmail com wrote:On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:11 AM Benjamin Berg <benjamin sipsolutions net> wrote:On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 22:30 -0700, Philip Chimento via foundation- list wrote:* Philip: Everyone please read this, we'll discuss it again in the next meeting. As suggested in Allan's comments, I can split the parts that are more of interest to Foundation members into a wiki page.Is the proposed policy fully available to foundation members for review and/or as a reference at this point in time?It's not a policy. It's an informal guideline for the board members, suggesting what standards the minutes should meet, and a procedure for approving the minutes of the previous meeting at the start of each meeting. […] The remaining board guideline part is honestly not going to be very interesting unless you like parliamentary procedure, but will be put on a wiki page as well when the board members agree on it.And I am very much interested in reviewing those. We had longer discussions in the relevant tickets and so far I had not gotten the impression that the Board has addressed the issue of missing meeting minutes adequately. I do have a real hope that these documents will improve the situation a lot for the future, and I am very much interested in doing a review. Ideally before the Board votes on them.Sure, I have pinged people about it to get things moving again. I personally am going on vacation tomorrow and will check what the progress is when I get back next week. The goal is to put both online before the end of the board term.
Thanks. I am looking forward to seeing the actual document(s), as it is much easier to talk about this once everyone has the full information.
But just to be clear, it's not a policy, and I don't believe the board is planning to vote on it. The wiki page is an explanatory wiki page which we will be happy to answer questions about, but is not going to represent any change from the status quo. The other document is basically a guideline for the board saying "approve the previous meeting's minutes at the start of each meeting, define a procedure by which corrections are to be made, and make sure to delegate the publishing of the minutes to someome else if the secretary hasn't been able to do it by then." As a fairly minor procedural change to the board meetings, it's not something we'd seek review or input on.
To be honest, the above explanation makes the situation more confusing to me. I simply can't make much sense of it, partially because I cannot map it to my experiences[1] and partly because it does not answer the questions that I have about this topic. Benjamin [1] I have been involved with various bodies primarily in the university and student council context. I have also worked on different bylaws and rules of procedures over the years (and reviewed state law in Germany). I believe I did learn quite a bit about good practices during that time even if it will not directly map to an anglo-saxon system. To be specific as to why I am struggling. My expectation would be that approving minutes is a mandatory procedure for the Board. And introducing such a procedure requires a vote. In contrast you seem to be handling it purely as a non-binding guideline which seems odd to me.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part