[OpenID board] URGENT: New Board members motion

Dick Hardt dick.hardt at gmail.com
Thu Oct 23 18:51:17 UTC 2008


Apologies for not starting the motion on the public list. Given the  
private nature of some of the information, private seemed best.

Later on I realized that the vote itself could be public -- so moved  
the conversation here.

As for the amount of context -- there is lots of context to any vote  
-- and the actual vote seems pretty straightforward to me.

DeWitt: have you conferred with other at Google and able to vote yet?

-- Dick


On 23-Oct-08, at 11:41 AM, DeWitt Clinton 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 Motion 2 was therefore withdrawn.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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20081023/0b50704b/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the board mailing list