Dick,<br><br>Can we have a restatement of the exact motion on the table, please? There is clearly some confusion here.<br><br>Also, a couple of procedural questions:<br><br> 1) Why were the corporate names withheld, but not the community member's?<br>
<br> 2) Will the corporate names be revealed at the conclusion of the vote?<br>
<br>-DeWitt<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Martin Atkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mart@degeneration.co.uk" target="_blank">mart@degeneration.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>David Recordon wrote:<br>
> This motion is about adding two companies, the prior one was about<br>
> adding one specific company. I support adding two additional companies<br>
> though as explained on the list not the one specific one in the prior<br>
> motion.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>The motion that I seconded specified two specific corporate board<br>
members. I think we're thinking of different motions.<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:board@openid.net" target="_blank">board@openid.net</a><br>
<a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board" target="_blank">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>