On 20.03.2010, at 02:27, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> 
> At 4:24 PM -0700 3/19/10, Colin Putney apparently wrote:
>> On 2010-03-19, at 12:46 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you also for your opinion.
>>> 
>>> It is not clear to me who on the board has the authority to ask me to take it down?
>>> All 7 perhaps unanimously like you mentioned was the signing requirement for the SOB? Or a majority 4/7? A designated member in charge of communications? It is unclear to me who even can speak on behalf of the SOB.
>> 
>> So, because there's no documentation about who can speak for the board, you claim that right for yourself, and refuse to recognize the right of actual board members to do so?
> 
> At the time I did not know whether everyone on the SOB felt the same way or whether it was just the vocal 3/7 minority. It seemed to me at the start that the SOB in general would welcome an easy way to post stuff to a FAQ type place. Boy was I wrong.
> I suppose I was logically assuming that a majority would be the way it might work, perhaps not. Perhaps everyone on the SOB speaks individually on behalf of the SOB.
> 
> Ken G. Brown

Unless specifically marked, no-one is speaking on behalf of the SOB.

Distrusting governments is (unfortunately) not a bad idea nowadays, but you are also disrespecting us as individuals. It's not that you need to pay respect *because* someone is on the board. But being elected to the board indicates that the community at large trusts these individuals. By extension, this means you are disrespectful to the community.

Time is the most valuable resource a volunteer community has. You are wasting our time. I find that offensive, both as a community member, and even more so as a board member, because the community entrusted us to keep this project going.

So, can we please get back to the topic of this thread? Are you actually going to contribute to the release? If you do not want to, can you just leave us alone?

- Bert -