[Foundation] UPDATE from Board Meeting

Jason Frankel jfrankel at winfessor.com
Thu Jul 31 17:50:30 CDT 2003


I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way but I have much better
things to do with my time than read (unproductive) rants that are directed
at one another.
Russell has helped out with a number of things in marketing (in particular
answering my stupid questions) and I'm sure that there isn't a conspiracy by
the board to make more time for their political strategy.

Please, criticize in private.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org>
To: <members at jabber.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation] UPDATE from Board Meeting


> Let me tell you what I consider unethical:
>
> People who complain but don't contribute.
>
> People who talk but don't do.
>
> People who produce heat but not light.
>
> People who take but don't give.
>
> People like Russell Davis.
>
> Peter
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 05:14:09PM -0400, Russell Davis wrote:
> > they are not unfounded they might be stretching the point a little but
> > they are definatly not unfounded. YES the by-laws allow the board to do
> > more or less what they want and that is good however the board and the
> > JSF in general has a terrible record at scheduling things and creating
> > rulesand then rescheduling or changing the rules at the last possible
> > moment this is not good and borders on inethical behaviour. I have
> > spoken about this at length on many occasions and IMHO it is not
> > acceptable, yes there is legally nothing wrong with it but it is not
> > good.
> >
> > it is unethical at the very minimum as it allows those who did not send
> > in their position papers to examine the papers of those that followed
> > the initial timetable and tailor their papers accordingly. Yes they
> > should not have access to them, but we all know things leak especially
> > within the JSF. If you have only recieved 2 position papers so far well
> > such is life and it is not close of business yet i am sure alot of
> > people were going to wait until the last possible moment.
> >
> > As for timetable for when the board meets or doesn't I really don't care
> > if it is every six weeks or every six days but whatever it is you stick
> > to it within reason. the rescheduling of a day or two is reasonable but
> > 9 days is not. I couldn't give two hoots as to why it was rescheduled
> > one of the responsibilities of board membership is to make yourself
> > available when meetings are scheduled and if you can't make it then the
> > rest continue without your input
> >
> > again I will say that without seeing the proposal I can't comment on it
> > and I am sure that if nothing else it will be interesting but there was
> > a much fairer way of handling this without resorting to the cakhanded
> > reschuling that seems to be a JSF signature increasing the discussion
> > time to fill in the gap would have been preferable and would not have
> > stunk of business as usual backroom politics.
> >
> > bst rgrds
> > Russell
> >
> > On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 15:29, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > Russell:
> > >
> > > The Board has been meeting about every six weeks, and that has proved
to
> > > be a productive schedule. A meeting was scheduled for July 22 but was
> > > postponed because of scheduling conflicts and the desire to wait for
> > > results of the name change vote before discussing the important
matters
> > > that are before the community at this time.
> > >
> > > One of those who proposed the name change asked me to request a delay
in
> > > the Board and Council position paper deadline so that people who
backed
> > > that proposal could sort out their next move and whether they wanted
to
> > > apply for Board and/or Council. In addition, the resolution that the
> > > Board approved has some impact on our direction as an organization,
and
> > > the Board felt that it would be appropriate for the candidates to take
> > > that resolution into account in their position papers. Combine that
with
> > > the fact I've received only two Board position papers (when the Board
has
> > > five members), and a postponement seemed eminently appropriate.
Finally,
> > > Section 3.2 of the JSF Bylaws reserves to the Board the right to name
> > > the time of the Annual Meeting. The three-week delay is not
unreasonable
> > > given the major decisions facing the organization.
> > >
> > > Your allegations of ethical misconduct are unfounded.
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:49:07PM -0400, Russell Davis wrote:
> > > > Before seeing the resolution I can make no comment about it however
I
> > > > find the fact that the board was meeting on the day when position
papers
> > > > are due for their replacements and making decisions that have
resulted
> > > > in delaying the timetable extremely concerning. While there is
nothing
> > > > legally wrong in them doing this, tact and ethics should have
resulted
> > > > in them either having their meeting a day or more earlier or waiting
> > > > until after the AGM. I feel this is extremely "unfair" to those who
have
> > > > worked hard to work within the initial timeframe to get their papers
in
> > > > on time.
> > > >
> > > > If they could not have had their meeting earlier or later then the
> > > > ethical course of action should have been:-
> > > >
> > > > 1. papers still due at close of business today
> > > >
> > > > 2. the discussion phase extended to cover the gap
> > > > between the papers due date and the new proxy voting date
> > > > created by delaying the AGM
> > > >
> > > > 3. proceed as normal taking into account the delay
> > > >
> > > > bst rgrds
> > > > Russell
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 13:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > > > > Today's meeting of the JSF Board of Directors just ended. As we
all
> > > > > know, this has been a time of ferment within the Jabber community,
and
> > > > > specifically within the JSF itself. The Board has passed an
important
> > > > > resolution that I think addresses most of the concerns raised by
those
> > > > > who recently proposed changing the name of the JSF. Because I must
craft
> > > > > the specific text of that resolution and receive approval from the
Board
> > > > > regarding that wording, I will not announce that resolution until
later
> > > > > today or possibly tomorrow. However, given the current
circumstances and
> > > > > the need to reach broad agreement regarding the resolution
approved
> > > > > today before moving forward, the Board has decided to postpone the
annual
> > > > > meeting of the JSF by three weeks, from August 27 to September 17.
This
> > > > > will result in changes to the schedule for Board and Council
elections as
> > > > > well. Specifically, the elections schedule is now as follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. August 21:  Board and Council position papers due
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. August 22 - September 2: Discussion / Questions
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. September 3 - 17: Proxy Voting
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. September 17 @ 17:00 UTC: Annual Meeting
> > > > >
> > > > > Please see my earlier announcement for more detailed information
about
> > > > > the elections process:
> > > > >
> > > > >
http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/members/2003-July/002493.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>




More information about the Members mailing list