On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 09:09:14AM -0500, David T. Lewis wrote:
> I am perfectly happy to have the board actually do what it was elected
> to do, and I see no reason to inhibit the board from providing oversight
> and taking action if needed. That includes invoking the SOGOTP clause
> in the rare case of a previously chartered team blocking the overall
> progress of the community while pursuing vaguely defined objectives
> on an unspecified timeline.

Yes. Keith and I were blocking progress by remaining silent. The
board did the right thing taking things into their own hands. By
the way, I'm the one being quoted as "tapple" in the blog post,
in case you didn't know

> Full credit to the board for facing the issue publicly, but I vote to
> stop worrying about this and carry on with Squeaking.

No; it needs to be defined what the board is responsible for if
we want to prevent disagreements over responsibilities leading
to flamewars and burnout in the future.

This is the best board squeak has ever had. Great job guys.

-- 
Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple)