[Osmf-talk] Proceedings from Face-to-Face Board Meeting
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 15:18:08 UTC 2012
2012/11/12 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> * an OSMF mission statement that we agreed on:
> * a set of "rules of order" for the board:
I really appreciate these clear statements, that OSMF should be a
democratic organization and that there are now explicit written rules
of order for the board.
Looking at the details there might still be room for some small optimizations,
the board rules of order, preface states: "These rules have been
agreed on by the board on 2012-11-04 and will remain in force until
they are replaced by a new set of rules, or abolished altogether." but
there is no specification about the procedure to replace or abolish
them (next paragraph says they do it "collectively" and "When in
doubt, a board decision is called for." but it would be important to
specify if this has to be done with simple or absolute majority, 2/3
or even 100%). As this governs the rules for board members, and they
themselves seem to have the right to change or abolish them, this
would be important in cases of dispute about certain aspects. Another
idea might be to let all members vote on changes of these rules (and
specify the procedure).
IMHO the simple majority and 50% quorum as specified in "6. Board
Meetings" is quite a small limit, it should be higher for important
changes like the board rules of order.
"3.3 No secrets will be kept between board members where OSMF business
maybe this could become more proactive (like it is written now it
would imply if they were asked they should not lie), or do I
"8.3 This does not cover expenses or income paid by the employer or
client of a board member when such employment or client relationship
is mentioned on the "Board Member Bios" page on the OSMF wiki."
this makes the whole "8. Gifts and Reimbursements" a little bit
toothless, still seems reasonable what can be requested and provides
some obligatory transparency (I do not want to say that current or
past boards were hiding business interests, this is geared towards
potential future conflicts).
More information about the osmf-talk