| 1 |
On 18-02-09 09:04:19, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> [Please don't top-post.] |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > You are using hyperbole. A majority vote of trustees is required. |
| 7 |
> > That is not haphazard, as you state -- it is a process that requires |
| 8 |
> > majority consensus of elected officials. We assume that the trustees |
| 9 |
> > are looking out for the project. The trustees are there to protect |
| 10 |
> > the community so they must have this ability. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I don't disagree with this. Still, trustees should not be able to |
| 13 |
> exclude a member without a reason, and they should communicate that |
| 14 |
> reason (not necessarily in public, but at least to the excluded |
| 15 |
> member). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The goal of keeping it open is to remove (as much as we can) the |
| 19 |
possibility of recourse (legal or otherwise). In practice I think we'd |
| 20 |
tend to communicate with the community, but there are times where we may |
| 21 |
need to keep something more private. I don't want to write ourselves |
| 22 |
into a corner where we HAVE to do something one way, or if something is |
| 23 |
not listed as a reason to kick someone we can't get rid of them (we |
| 24 |
missed something). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives