Humanitarian OSM Team/Working groups/Governance/2014-09-19

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Governance Working Group meeting on Friday September 19th 2014
This meeting was announced by Jaakko Helleranta in this Email sent September 17, 2014 and presided over by Russell Deffner.


Minutes of HOT Governance Working Group's 2nd meeting
Date & Time:September 19, 2014, 15:00 (All times are in UTC)
Place: IRC (oftc #hot)

Meeting participants (IRC handles), in the order of appearance: russdeffner, jaakoh_, IknowJoseph, bgirardot, AndrewBuck, harry-wood1

The detailed (and full) discussion of the meeting can be read at the bottom where the IRC log of the meeting is copied. The minutes below note the main items and decisions of the meeting.

1) Meeting opened at 15:01

2) Approved the August 13, 2014 meeting minutes without amendment as written in minutes email

3) No objection on the final language of the Quorum Amendment to the HOT Bylaws, as written in the same minutes email
Action Item: Russell and Jaakko will now prepare a Voting Members meeting to adopt the amendment

4) The Proposal for Proxy Rules (google doc) was presented, discussed, amended and the resulting version was adopted for proposal to the HOT Board of Directors.
Action Item: Jaakko to present to Board

5) No other business was raised and no next meeting was discussed (TBD after the Voting Members meeting)

6) Meeting adjourned at 16:59

IRC log:

14:59 russdeffner: Hello, we will be starting the Governance WG meeting very shortly
15:01 jaakkoh_: Good morning/afternoon or what ever it is in your zone. Russ will be leading this discussion as I'm tied up with something else in parallel. Thanks for that, Russ.
15:01 russdeffner: No problem
15:02 russdeffner: Before I get to the agenda, is anyone else here to attend the Gov WG?
15:02 IknowJoseph: hi russdeffner
15:03 russdeffner: Hello Joseph!
15:03 IknowJoseph: anyone else here for the WG?
15:03 bgirardot: I am here reading along.
15:03 russdeffner: great, welcome Blake
15:05 russdeffner: So first - is there any issue to be raised regarding the minutes from last time:
15:08 russdeffner: I'll take that as a no, can I get a motion to approve?
15:09 bgirardot: Can I make the motion?
15:10 russdeffner: Yes
15:10 bgirardot: I move that the minutes of the last meeting be approved as presented.
15:10 AndrewBuck: I can follow along. Don't have much to say though
15:11 russdeffner: great Andy, it should be a fairly quick meeting, but I'd like to be relatively 'strict' on formalitites
15:12 russdeffner: is there a second to approving the minutes?
15:12 bgirardot: looks hopefully at AndrewBuck
15:13 AndrewBuck: Just reading through them now.
15:13 AndrewBuck: Yes, I can second the motion to approve the minutes.
15:14 russdeffner: Ok, great - anyone not in favor (that will maybe be easier than yes-ing)
15:14 jaakkoh_: is happy to see motions and seconding of motions -- it's Governance WG after all! :)
15:15 russdeffner: Also, just realizing we don't have a very defined agenda, but basically from jaakkoh_'s email:
15:16 russdeffner: There are two items, as I see it; first to approve the language of the Quorum Amendment as written in that same email
15:17 russdeffner: Then the approval of the Proxy Rules.
15:19 bgirardot: I am adding a comment to the proposal if that is ok.
15:19 russdeffner: Once we get through those two I'll ask if there is any other business
15:19 russdeffner: Sure, that's ok
15:20 russdeffner: I think we'll tackle the Quorum language first, since it's carry-over from last time
15:21 russdeffner: So I motion to approve the amendment to strike-out article 5.6 and replace with 5.6a and 5.6b as written in the email mentioned above
15:23 russdeffner: This of course will go to vote, but we decided to first have this WG approve the language we'll propose to the voting members in mid-October
15:24 bgirardot: After having read the proposed changes, I send the motion to approve the amendment.
15:25 bgirardot: Second*
15:25 russdeffner: great, thanks; any objections?
15:25 AndrewBuck: none from me.
15:26 : marc1909 left the room (quit: Quit: marc1909).
15:26 jaakkoh_: Nope. Just a note that it's good to get this double-check but a emphasis in that the text is written to purely replicate the discussion of the last meeting. And there's an approving nod from the Board to this form already.
15:28 russdeffner: Ok, so doubly clarified that this is the amendment we will present
15:29 russdeffner: On to the next agenda item, the Proxy Rules, as drafted here:
15:32 AndrewBuck: harry-wood1: ping ^^^ Can you have a look at your comment and the responses?
15:33 : flavour [] entered the room.
15:33 russdeffner: I think the issue raised regarding verification that the email is coming from the member is valid, but probably can't get all members to use PGP signatures, so a follow up from the chair might be the best solution
15:34 russdeffner: other thoughts on that matter?
15:34 harry-wood1: gotta keep it simple
15:35 AndrewBuck: yeah, pgp would be too much for now, but something to look at long term. There are quite a few users already using it now.
15:35 AndrewBuck: I do like the idea of at least some confirmation though.
15:36 harry-wood1: We're dealing with the case of people not bothering to attend meetings (much). We need to be able to say to them "We need to you to vote in favour of the changes to the quorum. Please do so. Here's an easy way for you to do this"
15:36 russdeffner: I was actually thinking I would need to keep a spreadsheet of primary-proxy anyway; would making that available to the members suffice; i.e. check the spreadsheet to make sure I got it right?
15:37 AndrewBuck: Well, the concern is over how easy it is to "spoof" the sender info on an email, not on the accuracy of the records.
15:37 AndrewBuck: It is not difficult to send an email pretending to be someone else.
15:38 : }flavour{ left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
15:39 AndrewBuck: But I think the risk of this happening is relatively low, so I agree that keeping it simple is a good idea. I think a confirmation though replying to the response with quoted text (like a standard email client does when you reply) makes it a lot harder to fake.
15:40 bgirardot: I only brought it up because it is possible. Do I think it will happen? Not really, but I don't know what the priorities are. Replying to an email that says: "just confirming you sent this, please let me know" I hope would not be too much of an barrier. But to be clear, I think it would work fine the way it is to in practice.
15:40 AndrewBuck: So primary sends to proxy, proxy sends back asking for confirmation, primary sends back to proxy quoting the request for confirmation. 3 emails total and no special knowledge or tools required.
15:40 AndrewBuck: yeah, I think bgirardot and I are saying the same thing.
15:40 bgirardot: Aye
15:41 harry-wood1: But the primary is emailing the chair of the meeting to nominate their proxy. Chair just needs to send an email back saying "Thanks for nominating Bob as your proxy. He will vote for you in the upcoming meeting. If that's a mistake, and you did not want to do this, please let me know immediately"
15:42 bgirardot: That sounds good to me.
15:42 : mkl1 [] entered the room.
15:42 : mkl left the room (quit: Quit: Leaving.).
15:42 russdeffner: Maybe the proxy should email the chair with primary cc'd saying 'I've agreed to proxy for so-and-so'?
15:43 harry-wood1: Are these proxying arrangements likely to be used in future. or just for this one meeting (to get over the awkward quorum problem)
15:43 AndrewBuck: harry-wood1: ok, yeah that works. I thought you emailed the proxy rather than the chair, but in either case the same 3 email exchange should take place just to get confirmation.
15:43 russdeffner: Of course I have no problem with the chair needing to confirm
15:44 AndrewBuck: Not sure how likely they are in the future but if someone does want to do it we should at least have a system in place.
15:45 harry-wood1: Because I feel like we're suffering a logic failure on this vote.
15:45 : flavour left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
15:45 harry-wood1: NOBODY is opposed to changing the quorum
15:45 harry-wood1: And so� there's no option for a proxy if you're opposed �. so far
15:46 harry-wood1: So maybe the whole document could be simplified, to make the point that this is a very one-sided vote!
15:46 AndrewBuck: harry-wood1: that is true, but without quorum we can't change it, no matter how little opposition there might be, so we are making sure the proxy system is in place to ensure that we can get enough people at the meeting in order to even have a vote in the first place.
15:46 AndrewBuck: it is not about getting 'yes' votes, just getting people to the meeting.
15:47 AndrewBuck: And due to the issues with time zones, it is not unlikely people will want to proxy in the future as well.
15:47 bgirardot: Ok that brings up my other question
15:47 harry-wood1: It's all just a bit confusing. I guess this document is useful in future uses of the proxy approach
15:48 bgirardot: No where is it specifically stated that a proxy assignment will allow the Proxy member to be counted as two people for the purposes of establishing a quorum
15:48 bgirardot: We are just kind of assuming that to be the case no?
15:48 AndrewBuck: bgirardot: That is a good point, although I would suspect that DC law states something to that effect. Would need to know for sure though.
15:49 harry-wood1: I assume that's the idea of the proxy concept. Both people get counted
15:50 AndrewBuck: it does seem to be mentioned at the end of the second paragraph.
15:50 russdeffner: I agree it is mentioned but maybe should be stated more clearly?
15:51 bgirardot: Yes, but I think there really are two different things, one is the proxy for voting and one is the proxy for establishing a quorum. I think it should specifically stated somewhere we are treating the proxy assigment for both purposes to make it clear.
15:51 AndrewBuck: Did the lawyers mention that this is definitely how it works? If so, we should just state that in the doc.
15:52 harry-wood1: Oh I see what you mean. Both people are counted, both for the vote (obviously) but also for the establishing quorum
15:52 russdeffner: When Jaakko and I discussed this; we both intended the meaning to be both a proxy for voting and attendance
15:53 russdeffner: so let's try to clear that up
15:54 bgirardot: Yes, I am really just saying lets state it explicity in the doc as it is as central to the proposal as the voting portion of the proxy assignment.
15:54 bgirardot: Perhaps even the more important use of the proxy assignment.
15:55 bgirardot: In this one vote at least.
15:55 jaakkoh_: is catching up...
15:55 : sanderd17 left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
15:55 russdeffner: Ok, I'll add a sentence to the first paragraph of 'Using a Proxy'
15:55 jaakkoh_: russdeffner, "would making that (primary-proxy spreadsheet) available to the members suffice (..)?" IMO yes. Reply to email doesn't hurt of course.
15:56 AndrewBuck: yeah, in this case the proxy wouldn't even need to cast the second vote since the vote is likely to be unanaimous anyway, we just need them to "show up" on behalf of the primary.
15:57 AndrewBuck: jaakkoh_: the reply is important in addition to the making the spreadsheet public, since a long non-active member won't know to check the spreadsheet to see they are listed as being proxied.
15:58 : alexbarth left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
15:58 harry-wood1: Here's a fun question: What happens if somebody nominates a proxy, but then their proxy fails to attend the meeting?
15:58 jaakkoh_: re: harry-wood1 "Are these proxying arrangements likely to be used in future.", As AndrewBuck notes: " due to the issues with time zones, it is not unlikely people will want to proxy in the future as well."
15:58 jaakkoh_: So, just +1:ing :)
15:58 AndrewBuck: harry-wood1: Then I assume neither of them "attend the meeting".
15:58 harry-wood1: yep. Tough luck isn't it? Should we mention that in the document?
15:58 AndrewBuck: jaakkoh_: yeah that makes sense. I figured that was the case, just clarifying to be sure.
15:59 russdeffner: it is in there
15:59 harry-wood1: oh ok
15:59 russdeffner: 3rd paragraph from bottom
16:00 AndrewBuck: ok, yeah.
16:00 jaakkoh_: Sorry if this has been handled in later comments... But: bgirardot, On "(not being) stated that a proxy assignment will allow the Proxy member to be counted as two people", See definition: "Proxy - A Voting Member appointed decision making powers by another Voting Member"
16:00 jaakkoh_: To me that says it quite clearly.
16:00 AndrewBuck: jaakkoh_: it just doesn't mention quorum as well, we were talking about making that explicit.
16:00 jaakkoh_: Ah, unless you mean that this also implies the "presence" .. IMO that's clearly(!) implied..
16:00 bgirardot: two people for the purposes of establishing a quorum, voting and establishing the quorum are usually swperate.
16:01 jaakkoh_: Exactly.
16:01 AndrewBuck: And we all agree that is what was intended, we just thought it would be good to state it explicitely.
16:01 bgirardot: Aye
16:01 russdeffner: Oh, and actually I think I'll take out my new sentence and just reword the paragraph that starts "The Proxy has full powers" - think I can more definitely cover the qourum and vote issue
16:02 AndrewBuck: yeah, that looks good how you have it now.
16:02 jaakkoh_: Add as underlined: "Primary: A Voting Member delegating _their right to attend a meeting and_ their decision making power to a Proxy"
16:03 jaakkoh_: and "Proxy - A Voting Member appointed _to attend a meeting on behalf of a Primary and to carry(?)_ decision making powers by another Voting Member"
16:04 bgirardot: Since there are often laws that specifically address if a proxy can be used to count toward quorum, I would either check it is ok, or specifically state it will be used for purposes of quorum counting.
16:04 bgirardot: Instead of relying on assuming or it is implied or obviously that is what it means.
16:05 : pgiraud left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
16:05 AndrewBuck: it is explicit in the document now.
16:05 russdeffner: yes, we want as little assumption as possible
16:05 AndrewBuck: So I think that issue is addressed now.
16:06 russdeffner: do we want to change the definitions as jaakkoh_ suggests?
16:06 jaakkoh_: Could someone who knows where the change in noting the quorum counting is at highlight that with e.g. green, pls?
16:07 : chebizarro left the room (quit: Remote host closed the connection).
16:07 jaakkoh_: Foundit. Looks good: "The Proxy has full powers to represent the Primary in the meeting. This means that s/he is not only counted for the Primary in the meeting quorum, but can also cast vote(s) on behalf of the Primary. "
16:09 jaakkoh_: I think it's already explicit -- but then again, adding the representation on behalf of the primary in the definition wouldn't hurt (and would set it clear from before diving into details). .. I'm fine as is or with "expanded" definitions, though. Thoughts from others?
16:10 harry-wood1: Trying to think of a wording to make it clearer that the electronic voting may not apply� simply because there is no electronic voting permitted in a particular meeting (most notable the meeting that all this is being prepped for!)
16:11 AndrewBuck: I think it is already clear, if no electronic votes have taken place then there is nothing for the proxy to try to override.
16:11 jaakkoh_: harry-wood1, with underlined addition of "The exception to this is (or are) the vote(s) that _may_ have been cast prior to the meeting electronically _if applicable_.."
16:12 jaakkoh_: added that with italics to the doc
16:14 jaakkoh_: Overall, on electronic voting before the meeting: I think it's a very good policy for us to try to be organized enough to by default have all votes on matters that are to be handled in a meeting be cast electronically (and asychronously) before the meeting to keep things ordely and avoid confusion/hassle. (As a comment to Harry's comment in the doc and picking up from my comment to that already noted in the doc).
16:15 jaakkoh_: The thing being that our procedures and culture of meetings is not very developed (to say the least) and votes -- even when physically present in the same room -- can be a hassle and cause confusion.
16:15 harry-wood1: Yep that's fine. Agree with that
16:15 russdeffner: Ok, so there is a bit of Bylaw issue with that, but beyond the scope of these proxy rules.
16:16 harry-wood1: What I'm concerned about is chaos confusion and bureaucracy around this very simple vote, which everyone agrees on
16:16 jaakkoh_: Surely there's a legal right for the meeting to always decide to take matters to vote in the live meeting but I don't think that would be a good general practice.
16:16 : IknowJoseph left the room (quit: Quit: Lost terminal).
16:16 harry-wood1: I think we're going to need to a much clearer explanation of the whole thing ahead of the quorum changing meeting, where we're not being general. we're being very specific. "We need you to vote 'yes' by either being a proxy or nominating a proxy� (and by the way, you can go read how exactly proxies work over here)"
16:17 russdeffner: I think we'll need to amend/strike-out article 5.8 to 'fix' that issue, but again, probably table it for another day
16:18 jaakkoh_: harry-wood1, I (think I) understand. And totally agree that the guidance to this specific meeting and the specific vote before that must be very simple, short and clear with mere links to longer documents such as the whole proxy use policy.
16:18 russdeffner: the 'action without meeting' clause requires unanimous concent
16:18 : alexbarth [] entered the room.
16:20 russdeffner: so let's try to wrap up the proxy rules...
16:20 jaakkoh_: russdeffner, To me it seems pretty clear that 5.8 is targeted to the activity of the Board. .. And with that I think that we can just table it for the broader changes (in which I think we should separate the meetings of the Board and the Voting Members -- but that's another matter..).
16:21 russdeffner: yes, I think it was intended for Board action, so a simple clarification would do
16:22 russdeffner: AndrewBuck - any further comment/discussion on the 'absolute' power of proxy? i.e. First comment on the doc?
16:22 jaakkoh_: 5.8 can also seen to be an example from what I've come to think of as a mismatch in our current bylaws (in general) and what they are drafted for to the reality of what our voting membership is. .. That is, if we had a similar model as e.g. Greenpeace Nordic, which has many same structures as us but its voting members are a group the size of which is fixed to 20 then 5.8 could potentially make sense.
16:22 russdeffner: or anyone for that matter?
16:23 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: I would just say that it should be clarified in the doc.
16:23 jaakkoh_: No further comments from me (and parking all other comments on other matters for future discussion :) )
16:23 AndrewBuck: My reading of it is, they do have absolute authority and if the primary doesn't like how their proxy voted, tough luck.
16:23 : FredB left the room.
16:24 jaakkoh_: AndrewBuck, Your reading is correct.
16:24 AndrewBuck: I just think that should be made clear because if it ever happens it will be major chaos and arguing.
16:24 AndrewBuck: I don't want to have to try to reason that with someone unhappy with how their vote was cast by their proxy.
16:25 AndrewBuck: And I think it should be stated that even if you gave instructions on how the proxy should vote, if they vote differently you have no recourse.
16:25 russdeffner: ok, so this is a similar clarification; do we want to be more explicit in the definitions or in the content; I think either works again?
16:26 jaakkoh_: E.g. Presidential elections of countries that have a "proxy vote" in terms of electoral collage votes that are used by humans in between show cases from history where there have been surprises.
16:26 : raunc3 [] entered the room.
16:27 jaakkoh_: I think the rules are explicit enough. It could be just noted as a clarification in guidance. .. OTOH. If you guys think that it's better to note that clarity here and not in the simple guidance then that's fine too.
16:27 AndrewBuck: jaakkoh_: yeah, exactly. And new information might come to light at the meeting where the proxy thinks they should vote differently, which may or may not be agreed by the primary, but in either case it should be clear that the vote is final and legitimate.
16:28 bgirardot: Sorry, to interrupt, but I apologize I have to step out. Thank you for allowing me to participate. I will catch up when I return.
16:28 AndrewBuck: Anywhere in the doc works for me, just so that if it does happen we can point to the relevent wording that makes it explicit, rather than trying to reason with an angry person (which never ends well).
16:28 : raunc3 left the room.
16:28 russdeffner: No problem bgirardot, thanks for participating
16:28 jaakkoh_: IMO it's the beauty -- and perhaps horror -- of representational democracy in general. Could be as simple as: reality. We trust people to make choices when we can't be present in all situations at all times. Sometimes things go good, sometimes not as we thought. The we correct.
16:28 : emirhartato [~smuxi@] entered the room.
16:28 jaakkoh_: (^Then we correct.)
16:29 russdeffner: So, I'm thinking to adjust the paragraph with the comment...
16:29 jaakkoh_: Did bgirardot leave already? Ok with the draft as is currently?
16:29 AndrewBuck: jaakkoh_: yeah, for sure. And I agree with what you are saying, I am just thinking back to the mess surrounding the last board election (which I still haven't fully read through since it got so long) and trying to avoid such a thinng in the future.
16:31 russdeffner: Ok, I think that covers it
16:32 AndrewBuck: I think the no prior arrangements thing is good.
16:32 AndrewBuck: I will mark my comment resolved.
16:32 jaakkoh_: Heh. AndrewBuck , I was just typing a comment to your comment when you closed it... :)
16:33 AndrewBuck: So the only other outstanding comment is about the email response.
16:33 AndrewBuck: jaakkoh_: anything that needed to be said, or just stating you think it is resolved?
16:33 russdeffner: thanks AndrewBuck, I was just typing that :)
16:35 russdeffner: I can add a simple sentence about a chair reply/confirmation
16:35 AndrewBuck: Yeah, I think that is all that is needed.
16:36 : jgc left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
16:36 AndrewBuck: Just to tighten it up a bit. We are not exchanging nuclear launch codes so it doesn't need to be airtight, but at least taking care of the most egregious issue will suffice I think without too much extra work.
16:36 jaakkoh_: I was jotting down that IMO this is a pretty universal way proxies work (to my understanding, of course, which perhaps shouldn't always be trusted in our global setup..). Unless otherwise noted, that is. .. So, I'm just thinking if we're perhaps making a little bit of a mountain out of a mole with spelling it out so "harshly"? That is to say that another way would be to make footnote about this matter as a "commentary". .. In that it would also be elaborat
16:36 jaakkoh_: ed that the primary can of course give guidance to the proxy -- and that the proxy could vote separately with two different votes if s/he wanted to (and we'd perhaps need to explicitly allow that -- but IMO this would be a typical issue that could simply in the judgement of the Chair). .. And in that it could be noted that the proxy could still vote in any way s/he wanted to _in the end_, so to say.
16:37 jaakkoh_: .. Aaaand the above said, I'm fine with the articulation that Russ added to the doc. .. Just thinking aloud.
16:38 russdeffner: Yes, I didn't want it to sound discouraging to discuss with your proxy, but that the organization wouldn't be stuck dealing with 'outside' agreements
16:39 AndrewBuck: I think it is clear that the proxy can vote for themselves differently then the person they proxy for.
16:39 AndrewBuck: The clarification I was looking for was only if the proxy voted _on behalf of the primary_ differently than had been agreed.
16:40 jaakkoh_: AndrewBuck, Me too. And when there's a general enough understanding on things but they can also be left for the chairperson to confirm as they arise. .. To spell out all possible scenarios would be to spell out the current and next version of the Robert's Rules of Order and all its clarifications/commentary..
16:41 AndrewBuck: yeah, for sure.
16:41 AndrewBuck: So I think we are good then, correct?
16:41 russdeffner: Ok, so I think all standing comments have been dealt with
16:41 AndrewBuck: Only outstanding comment is bgirardot who I expect will be fine with the changes as noted.
16:42 russdeffner: Any other motions to amend the Proxy Rules?
16:42 russdeffner: draft - to be approved by Board (right jaakkoh_ ?)
16:43 jaakkoh_: Yes. I would call it: Governance WG's approved proposal for a policy on use of proxies in Voting Members meetings. .. Once it's approved.
16:43 AndrewBuck: russdeffner: Are you asking for motions to further ammend the proxy rules, or for a motion to approve them as written now and send them to the board for final approval?
16:44 russdeffner: any further ammending, first?
16:44 : emirhartato left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
16:44 AndrewBuck: Nothing from me.
16:45 jaakkoh_: Nothing from me. .. Is anyone else still around / reading in?..
16:45 russdeffner: Joseph?
16:46 russdeffner: Oh well, it is approaching the second hour, but that was some much appreciated feedback and amending...
16:46 jaakkoh_: * IknowJoseph has quit (at 10:16)
16:47 russdeffner: Do I have a motion to approve the Proxy Rules?
16:47 AndrewBuck: I move to approve the proxy rules as currently ammended.
16:48 jaakkoh_: I am moved to second AndrewBuck 's movement.
16:48 russdeffner: thank you, is there any objection?
16:49 : emirhartato [~smuxi@] entered the room.
16:49 russdeffner: Ok, I resolved Blake's comment - Jaakko, you can lock the document from editing and present it to the Board
16:50 russdeffner: Would anyone like to present anything else for the Governance WG before we adjorn?
16:51 jaakkoh_: Great. Thanks. The only people allowed to edit it are you and me already. Others can "comment" (which by current Google terminology means making edits that show up as suggestions).
16:51 jaakkoh_: I'll just comment (which I perhaps could have done before) that it seems that even Robert's Rules of Order's most recent version seem to be silent on use of proxies.
16:52 : larryone left the room (quit: Quit: This computer has gone to sleep).
16:53 : Paul_Mallet [] entered the room.
16:53 jaakkoh_: The FAQ of the "RRoO Newly Revised - In Brief" that explains things and refers to the complete (Brick of) "RRoO Newly Revised" essentially simply notes that local laws and bylaws are what define their use.
16:53 AndrewBuck: Nothing else from me.
16:54 russdeffner: Yes, RR basically considers a proxy to be against the ideals of an assembled committee/body but I think we have good reasons (i.e. the time/global assembly issue)
16:54 : mkl1 left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
16:54 russdeffner: that whole republic vs democratic thing :)
16:55 jaakkoh_: russdeffner, exactly. But since DC statues allow that and our lawyer simply commented that we need to define the procedure of using them I think we're really on as solid ground with our way of defining things as we could ever be (by handling via both Gov WG and the Board).
16:55 jaakkoh_: I think RRO's position on this also has to do with the fact that their heritage started a century before the Internet...
16:57 russdeffner: Alright, so I motion to adjourn; can I get a second?
16:57 jaakkoh_: .. to which I must add that it's interesting to realize that Internet doesn't really solve the problem of attendance -- the darned different time zones and the reality of not being able to be everywhere at the same time always.
16:57 jaakkoh_: I second that motion, certainly.
16:59 : emirhartato left the room (quit: Ping timeout: 480 seconds).
16:59 russdeffner: Great, thanks everyone; as long as there is no objection we'll call the meeting adjourned
16:59 : emirhartato [~smuxi@] entered the room.
16:59 jaakkoh_: Thanks russdeffner & all.
17:00 russdeffner: And jaakkoh_ - are we posting minutes to the wiki or just via email?
17:01 russdeffner: I could take a bit of time today to update the WG wiki and post last meeting and this one
17:01 jaakkoh_: IMO both. Last time I just emailed but harry-wood1 was kind enough to add that to the wiki. Perhaps we could add to the wiki then link to that and provide a link to the doc too.
17:01 jaakkoh_: That would be great if you could do that.
17:01 russdeffner: oh, thanks to Harry, didn't notice that - will get today up soon