| 1 |
On 14/07/19 20:43, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 3:25 PM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 10:32:29AM -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> I am not sure why we would propose this to the general membership? This is a |
| 5 |
>>> matter for those elected to consider. Of course, the general membership should |
| 6 |
>>> be notified of how these things are being handled, what the significance is, and |
| 7 |
>>> how each course of action was considered. |
| 8 |
>> Intent matters here. If you have a voluntary filing, what do your |
| 9 |
>> personal code of ethics say about it? "Always do every optional thing" |
| 10 |
>> vs "do only what's actually required" |
| 11 |
> Honestly, if people care about which option is chosen, they should |
| 12 |
> vote for candidates who already support that option, and if there |
| 13 |
> aren't enough of those running they should consider running |
| 14 |
> themselves. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> IMO it makes no sense to elect a bunch of people who are enthusiastic |
| 17 |
> about option A, and then tell them that they have to run the |
| 18 |
> organization using option B. That seems like a great way to end up |
| 19 |
> having everything done to the minimum requirements, if that. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If the general membership want things done a certain way, they ought |
| 22 |
> to elect a board that is enthusiastic about doing things in that |
| 23 |
> manner, that way it actually gets done properly. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
It would appear that, for whatever reason, that is either impossible or |
| 26 |
undesired .. I leave it to the readers to decide which. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
However, it would be rather nice if this wasn't actually the case ... |
Archives