[OpenID board] Further discussion ...

Recordon, David drecordon at verisign.com
Fri Apr 6 21:28:53 UTC 2007

I certainly can understand your frustration in this matter and I do not
believe anyone had any intention of making you feel as if your time was

If I had known I had to send a formal request to the board list
requesting an extension then I certainly would have, though I guess I
hoped that the work Bill had been posting would have showed some
progress being made.  While Drummond, Artur, or myself not being able to
attend the meeting yesterday is certainly no excuse for holding up work,
I would also have hoped that those present would have taken this ongoing
task into account and not made a decision given the importance and
impact of these proposals.

With that said, when speaking with Scott and Bill yesterday I expressed
my desire to not be listed as being in support of the current proposal
when sent to the general@ list.  From this, the conversation shifted to
the reality that Bill and I could meet face-to-face on Monday morning to
draft an alternative proposal for the board to review.  I think
considering the few days this may slow us down, it was agreed to on the
phone that it would be a worthwhile exercise.


-----Original Message-----
From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
Behalf Of Dick Hardt
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:46 PM
To: board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Further discussion ...

While I was not a party to the telephone call with David and I respect
and will stand behind Bill and Scott's decision to change plans, I am
concerned about the organization operating according to standard
organizational process.

1) A bylaws committee was nominated and empowered to put together a
proposal for bylaws. Discussion points were presented (Feb 22) and
feedback was conducted with the board, and a proposal was drafted and
presented (Mar 14). There was no explicit decision from the board about
what was wrong with the proposal. A new committee was formed though to
create an alternative proposal, rather then working within the existing
committee. As the leader of the original committee, I question if the
committee was truly empowered and if my time was wasted creating the
original proposal.

2) The board made a decision (April 5) on how to move forward with the
proposal. All board members were aware of the proposal. The agenda for
the meeting clearly stated the board was going to deal with the issue.
No alternative proposal had been provided, although two weeks had
elapsed. No request had been made to extend the time to create an
alternative proposal. The board looked at all available information and
made a decision. This decision is now being changed.  
I'm assuming there was some extraordinary new information that led Scott
and Bill to change the decision after talking to David.

David: would you be able to share with the rest of the board why the
board decision should be changed?

If we are going to be able to move forward as a board, we need to
empower committees to do tasks, and we need to make good decisions with
available information and execute on them.

-- Dick

On 5-Apr-07, at 6:52 PM, Scott Kveton wrote:

> Hi Everybody,
> Bill and I had a discussion with David about our plans moving forward 
> and the proposal that Dick and I are putting forward.  David and Bill 
> are going to meet on Monday to talk over their donation-only model and

> get a proposal out to the list by Tuesday at the latest.  In light of 
> David being out for the last week, I'm all for this.
> I'd like us to compare/contrast the two proposals on Tuesday - 
> Thursday and have any final discussion on our call next Thursday.  We 
> could then put it to a vote of the board unless we find some middle 
> ground that everyone can agree on.  Ideally we'd announce the proposed

> structure to the General list on Monday of Web 2.0 Expo and offer the 
> chance for people in town to meet with the board members that are 
> present to talk about the why and how of the proposal we put forward.
> Again, I'd like to reiterate, I'm most interested in a solution that 
> is sustainable and palatable by the OpenID community.  The sooner we 
> find that solution, the better off we're going to be as a community.
> Thoughts/comments/concerns?
> - Scott
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board

board mailing list
board at openid.net

More information about the board mailing list