* Per Jessen email@example.com [09-08-18 14:32]:
Simon Lees wrote:
On 07/09/2018 05:47, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
asking for a close of debate and:
I hereby move for a vote by the Membership to mandate a public record of the comitteemenbers vote for, against or abstention of, for $SUBJECT, to be included in the minutes. a reason for the particular vote would be welcome but not mandatory. note that private matters as those of a particularly personal matter or of non-disclosure type would be considered outside this direction.
call for seconds
I would argue that to start doing this outside of exceptional circumstances is changing the role of the board
What Patrick proposes will change the role of the Board??? I think not. The role of the Board would not change in any way.
Personally i'd strongly advocate for not making this change due to reasons already outlined in this thread.
I find it very difficult to accept the point being argued here - "trust is enough, no need for control". I have seen noone argue that in this thread. Real life is full of examples to the contrary - Swissair? Lehmann Brothers? Greece? (just happens to have been in the news due to the anniversary).
Are there any actual rules for submitting the above to a vote by the Board? It is then up to the Board to decide whether to defer to the community, and if so, prepare a referendum at the earliest convenience.
you would at least think a member making a motion and calling for a vote would be recognized as such or denied outright as not prudent or ....
is accountability not deemed a necessary attribute? in the particular case it is only to one's reputation which is how the board members are elected. and atm that only amounts to a "popularity contest" as we have no basis to judge who may best represent us in the manner we expect.