inode0 said the following on 03/13/2009 07:14 AM Pacific Time:
<cut>
Disclaimer: I take the notes for the board meetings. I am not a board
member and I do not participate in the discussions.
Comparing these 40 minutes with the information I receive by reading
the minutes of the private board meetings I'd like to make two
observations. First, John does a great job summarizing the discussion
that took place in the minutes but that summary rarely includes who
said what. That is still quite valuable and helps educate the reader
of the minutes about the nuances of the issue and the board's
collective thinking about the problem. Accountability isn't something
we can hold the board collectively responsible for though since we
don't vote for the board collectively. Who said what is critical to
our understanding of each individual member of the board and to our
ability to hold them accountable in subsequent elections. (In case
this "accountability" theme sounds negative I want to be clear
everyone understands that it isn't negative. It is more likely by
increasing my awareness of the individual participation of board
members that I will say this member is great, I want to vote *for* him
next time.)
I appreciate your appreciation :)
Anyone that has taken notes for a meeting knows that really well written
notes can take a long time to do even when the final products doesn't
look like it. In the past it has not been unusual to spend the same
amount of time writing the notes after the meeting as the meeting
itself. So two hours can easily evaporate from a work day just for one
meeting. I can't imagine how much time it would take to transcribe the
view points of nine different people as they engage in vigorous debate.
While this might provide value for some issues I don't think it is
sustainable or provides a very good ROI on the use of time.
I think I see what you are getting at here and I think it is reasonable.
It sounds like you want to know that your elected representative did
what you elected them to do. One idea I have here would be listing the
board member that sponsored or brought up a certain topic for discussion
or decision. Over time this might provide an indication of board member
involvement in driving different issues?
My second observation about the minutes are that board decisions are
announced collectively. When the decision is unanimous it seems to be
expressed in the minutes as something like "the board unanimously
decided X." I can only presume that when the decision omits any
mention of unanimity that there was some dissent among board members
although I am not given any sense of either who dissented or to what
degree the board was in disagreement. The public votes cast in the
first 40 minutes of the last public meeting stand in stark contrast to
this. I know exactly who voted and how they voted as well as knowing
the collective vote of the board as a whole. Having elected officials
generally cast their votes in public seems natural to me, promotes
individual accountability to the voter, and doesn't stand at odds with
our project's very public stated goal of doing its business in an open
and transparent manner.
An interesting question here would be ask the board exactly what their
decision making style is and which style they apply to which types of
decisions. A "majority vote" is NOT "consensus". It is a majority
vote. My observation is that the board usually seeks to reach a
consensus and when they cannot turn to a vote.
Consensus as defined in class I recently took is: "The entire group
*owns* and *support* the decision". This is not the same as a majority
vote where the "yes" votes win and the motion passes.
I wonder if the board would consider it reasonable to record the "yes"
and "no" votes by member when the vote is not unanimous? I also do not
think that someone should be able to abstain (which I think is more an
indication of lack of resolve or ambivalence). If we elect people to
make hard decisions they should do so... not ride the middle or "decide
not to decide".
I do understand that there are costs associated with doing more of the
business of the board in public. I understand transcribing and
summarizing business done on conference calls is difficult and
unpleasant work. I understand not all board business can be done in
public.
At what point is the cost too high? My own measure is the amount of time
to create the minutes exceeds the length of the meeting.
Thanks for your thoughtful questions and suggestions.
John
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
