On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 18:50, Jeff Waugh wrote: > I think you may be taking the formality of the minutes a little bit too > seriously, but that is probably a result of your background more than > anything else. I haven't been involved with, or experienced, non-profit > community organisations with BoD-style see-your-face-polished minutes; > generally they don't have the same financial or legal responsibilities and > liabilities, and have a totally different organisational focus (community > vs. competition, openness vs. save-our-arses, etc). I too initially thought that maybe things were a bit formal - but once AfC explained the motivation behind this (i.e. having a straight, boring, hard to misinterpret way of covering our arses, among other things previously mentioned) I was a lot more comfortable with it and indeed, now am an avid supporter of that way of doing minutes. Indeed, there are also good arguments for not making them public at all, and only publishing summaries publicly - it does help people get the hint that we do want to be an open organisation. Maybe we should have a big sign on the minutes page saying that minutes may be withheld from the public due to legal reasons (checking with a lawyer or an actual decision that says "don't make that public")? > But, whether they're published this way or not, the ideas/goals expressed by > yourself, Pia and Stewart for next year's improved communication have been > great. Much rocking to be had. Agreed - this will muchly help. -- Stewart Smith <stewart@linux.org.au> Linux Australia Inc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part