Efficient board meetings, revised
ijackson at chiark.greenend.org.uk
Tue Oct 26 15:11:54 UTC 2004
Martin Schulze writes ("Re: Efficient board meetings, revised"):
> Even though I agree that many things should be done via mail and not
> via IRC, I also consider it a problem we cannot solve through more
> and more resolutions. I'll have to work accordingly. All of us.
> Every board member.
Does that mean that you think we should:
(a) Maintain the status quo ? Currently my earlier `Efficient Board
Meetings' is nominally in force, but is often ignored and/or
ranted about by some of the people who run the meeting. If the
Board doesn't pass either my reaffirmation of Efficient Board
Meetings, or David's abolition of it, where does that leave us ?
(b) Abolish `Efficient Board Meetings' because although you agree
with it you think `more and more resolutions [cannot] solve [the]
problem' ? That would seem silly to me.
Note that my proposal is not `more and more' resolutions. It's
not even _one_ more resolution: it's a reaffirmation and
clarification of an established resolution, and the total number
of resolutions in force would remain constant.
(c) Vote in favour of reaffirming `Efficient Board Meetings', because
you agree with it, even though it won't solve all of our
(d) Something else ?
I _do_ agree that reaffirmin my resolution won't solve all of SPI's
problems. But I think it _can_ contribute towards ensuring that:
* Matters which the board considers have at least had time for proper
documentation, discussion, reflection and research (unless of
course there's some external reason why it all has to be done
* It is clearly stated that board members are expected to participate
in the pre-meeting work. A board member who fails to participate
in email discussions will also find themselves in a weak position
if they try to raise matters at the last moment in the meeting,
wasting everyone's time. A board member who consistently fails to
do their job can readily be criticised, and ultimately the
membership will decide whether they should continue on the board.
More information about the Spi-general