[OpenID board] URGENT: New Board members motion

Chris Messina chris.messina at gmail.com
Thu Oct 23 18:43:56 UTC 2008


+1.

Of course it's the job of the board to make semi-unilateral decisions
regarding the OIDF, but the current flow of conversation is both
confusing and alarming, especially without context.

Thanks Dewitt for trying to capture the state of the conversation and
provide the path for the current debate/discussion even if I'm unable
to vote. ;)

Chris

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:41 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dewitt at google.com> wrote:
> And as commentary, I'll add that while I applaud the use of the public board
> list, and wholeheartedly support its continued use going forward, I find it
> incredibly unorthodox to  unilaterally move an in-progress vote to the
> public list, particularly one where the motion is partially redacted and
> requires so much context, especially without any prior discussion with the
> rest of the board about doing so.
>
> That said, I'm all for moving future online votes to the public list.  Let's
> just do that up front, rather than doing it unexpectedly midway through.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -DeWitt
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dewitt at google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Dick.
>>
>> I ask both to clarify my own understanding, and because most of the
>> background was to board-private, and the people on the public board list do
>> not have the context to understand the vote in progress.
>>
>> For observers, here's what I can recall that can be made public:
>>
>> From the October 9th minutes
>> (http://docs.google.com/View?id=dg3mt5r8_35f72k7hhg):
>>>
>>> Motion 2: Offer board seats to the companies that were previously
>>> interested (making seven corporate members)
>>>
>>>
>>> and nominate Brian Kissell to serve as an interim community member until
>>> the next elections.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposed by Dick. Seconded by Johannes.
>>>
>>> DeWitt and Gary objected on the grounds that this should wait until the
>>> membership committee
>>>
>>>
>>> has finished its proposal.
>>>
>>> The membership committee will therefore make its proposal via email next
>>> week and the board
>>>
>>>
>>> will vote on it via email to avoid delaying progress until the next full
>>> board meeting.
>>> Motion 2 was therefore withdrawn.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> On October 16th, Bill Washburn sent the membership committee proposal to
>> the board-private mailing list in a thread "Ranked candidates for OIDF Board
>> membership".  There began a back-and-forth dialog about how the candidates
>> were ranked, and a discussion about whether it was important that board
>> members implement OpenID.  Opinions were expressed on both sides.
>>
>>
>> On October 21st, Dick Hardt reintroduced this motion to the board-private
>> list:
>>
>>> I motion that we accept [redacted] and [redacted] as coporate board
>>> members and
>>> add [redacted] (presuming he accepts) as a community board member.
>>> [redacted]'s seat will come up for election at the next election.
>>
>> (I additionally redacted the community member's name, as I don't follow
>> the logic of partial confidentiality.)
>>
>> Martin seconded the motion.
>>
>> I asked if the motion could be split into three separate nominations.
>> Dick replied no, that the motion stood as it was.
>>
>> David voted -1 due to the "current ongoing discussion in the thread titled
>> "Ranked candidates for OIDF Board membership"".
>>
>> This morning, this thread "URGENT: New Board members motion" began on the
>> public board list.
>>
>> Before we move on;  Dick and others, does this match your recollection.
>> Do you feel it provides sufficient context?
>>
>> -DeWitt
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Dick Hardt <dick.hardt at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> OMFG
>>> The corporate names are in the board-private postings. I just posted them
>>> again. This is the same motion I made at the last board meeting.
>>> Read the rest of my emails about why the corporate names won't be
>>> revealed until the corporations are ready to reveal them.
>>> -- Dick
>>> On 23-Oct-08, at 10:52 AM, DeWitt Clinton wrote:
>>>
>>> Dick,
>>>
>>> Can we have a restatement of the exact motion on the table, please?
>>> There is clearly some confusion here.
>>>
>>> Also, a couple of procedural questions:
>>>
>>>   1) Why were the corporate names withheld, but not the community
>>> member's?
>>>
>>>   2) Will the corporate names be revealed at the conclusion of the vote?
>>>
>>> -DeWitt
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Martin Atkins <mart at degeneration.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> David Recordon wrote:
>>>> > This motion is about adding two companies, the prior one was about
>>>> > adding one specific company. I support adding two additional companies
>>>> > though as explained on the list not the one specific one in the prior
>>>> > motion.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> The motion that I seconded specified two specific corporate board
>>>> members. I think we're thinking of different motions.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> board mailing list
>>>> board at openid.net
>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> board mailing list
>>> board at openid.net
>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>
>



-- 
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
  Open Technology Advocate-at-Large
factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ] private



More information about the board mailing list