[OpenID board] URGENT: New Board members motion

David Recordon drecordon at sixapart.com
Thu Oct 23 18:49:07 UTC 2008


Yes, completly agreed with this.  Glad this is public, though was very  
clearly confused when it happened. :)

---
Sent from my iPhone Classic.

On Oct 23, 2008, at 11:44 AM, "Chris Messina"  
<chris.messina at gmail.com> wrote:

> +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
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board




More information about the board mailing list