Board meeting procedure

Steve Greenland steveg at
Tue Jul 29 21:33:10 UTC 2003

As an interested observer who finds even the edited IRC logs of the
board meetings unbearable:

On 29-Jul-03, 15:12 (CDT), Wichert Akkerman <wichert at> wrote: 
> Previously Ian Jackson wrote:
> > No-one followed up to my email, so I assume people didn't think it
> > unreasonable, but this last meeting turned into another collosal waste
> > of time and IRC argument.
> I did request everyone to post resolutions before the meeting,
> admittedly somewhat late though.
> > 9. There shall be strictly no discussion during the meeting.  Anything
> >    that requires more discussion than has taken place before the
> >    meeting shall be postponed until next meeting or email voting.  If
> >    board members feel the discussion has not been adequate then they
> >    should vote NO on the relevant motion.
> Is this too strict possibly? This will reduce meetings to voting and
> notices. I would like to leave some room to discuss alternate already
> proposed resolutions.

Ian's whole point is that if the resolutions are posted sufficiently in
advance, then there is plenty of time for discussion via e-mail, and no
point in wasting everyone's time by re-iterating that discussion in a
frenzy of bad spelling and mangled sentences. (Or so I presume...)

If someone really does come up with a brilliant new alternative, then
they should say so, and everyone can't vote NO (or postpone) on the
existing proposal, and you can discuss in plenty of time for the next


Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net

More information about the Spi-general mailing list