[OpenID board] Further discussion ...
drecordon at verisign.com
Sat Apr 7 01:37:10 UTC 2007
I'm not sure how I vetoed this. Just as with any board vote it is
public record as to +1, 0, and -1; I asked for the exact same thing in
this case. When made public that it be represented in terms of whomever
on the board is in support of the proposal, abstained from voting, and
is not in support of it.
From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
Behalf Of Dick Hardt
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 5:58 PM
To: board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] Further discussion ...
The board had been presented with a proposal two weeks earlier. You had
requested time to put together an alternative proposal, which in and of
itself thwarts the process.
Since it appears you are missing the bigger point I was making, I will
We cancelled our board meeting last week as there had been no progress
on the alternative proposal.
The agenda item for the last meeting was to decide on how to proceed.
Emails had been sent prior asking if there was an alternative proposal
to review prior to the meeting.
In summary, there was lots of notice that the board was going to make a
decision. The board should be able to operate without you present.
From what I read below, you effectively vetoed the board decision, and
Bill and Scott decided in the interest of harmony to appease you.
On 6-Apr-07, at 2:28 PM, Recordon, David wrote:
> 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 wasted.
> 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
> -----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
>> 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
>> 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.
>> - Scott
>> board mailing list
>> board at openid.net
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
board mailing list
board at openid.net
More information about the board