On Nov 5, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:

> I pointed out to Keith on IRC a while ago that it was simply  
> impossible
> for the board to "break the rules" since we have never had any  
> rules. He
> has kindly suggested a possible set of such rules and I think that  
> is a
> good starting point for a discussion.
>
> In the page in the blog I have added some links to the rules or
> organizations of other Free Software projects. Most other project have
> no rules that I could find and even these are pretty informal.
>
> Given that our community is pretty small, that elections are frequent
> (every 12 months) and that re-elections are very common (most of the
> current board was part of the previous one), I don't think most of the
> proposed rules would help very much. I'll make a brief comment on each
> one:

I generally agree with your interpretation/comments on items 1-8.

>
> 9) There should be a grievance procedure and an equal opportunities
> policy including disability awareness

>
> I didn't attempt to paraphrase this because I didn't understand it.
>

This seems to be two different points (let's call them 9a and 9b  
though they should probably really be 9 and 10):

9a) a grievance procedure when someone feels that the preceding terms  
have been violated

9b) I *think* he's talking about the Board having some sort of  
obligation to attempt to work with limitations of individual  
contributors.  Keith made reference several times that he was unable  
to take one (or more) course(s) of action being suggested (in IRC) and  
at least a couple of board members *seemed* to understand what he was  
referring to (either that or they were taking his response at face  
value)

The intent of these appears to be to have the Board make  
accommodations to the needs of individual contributors and to provide  
some sort of recourse to contributors should they believe that things  
aren't being handled properly at a finer level of granularity than  
'wait for the next election cycle'.

> One thing that Keith mentioned, a "vote of no confidence" followed  
> by an
> ad hoc election, didn't get included in this list. Without that I  
> don't
> see what the answer could be to "what happens if the rules get  
> broken?"
>

I think a lot of that was/is the result of how the situation was  
handled.

> Given that the next election is at most 12 months away and that any ad
> hoc election would probably pick the exact same board that was just
> kicked out, I am against such a rule. But without it, none of the  
> others
> "have any teeth".
>
> I would be happy with general principals rather than rules, and the
> board has previous tried to define that:
>
> http://squeakboard.wordpress.com/our-mission/
>
> -- Jecel
>
>

I agree that adding a lot of mandatory process and rules probably  
wouldn't have changed the outcome of this, or future, situations.

Direction can change for any number of reasons (priorities,  
contributors, pressures internal/external, etc.) and when it does,  
just have an open and inclusive dialog about what and why things need  
to change.  Also, communicating ahead of time with any impacted  
parties, publicly or privately, would be a *very* good idea.  Those  
seemed to be the key things missing here as it appeared arbitrary, and  
frankly, rather cold in how it was carried out.  One can get away with  
that approach in a business where (presumably) people are being  
compensated to put up with it.  In a volunteer arrangement, not so much.

I appreciate this open discussion taking place.  If nothing else, it  
is a worthwhile exercise to discuss Keith's proposal and see what, if  
any, changes people would like to see made in light of recent events.

Phil