Justin's proposed changes.

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Stephen Satchell wrote:

> At 7:40 PM 1/26/97, Michael Dillon wrote:
> >           I am for the motion.
> >           I am opposed to the motion but willing to go along.
> >           I am against the motion.
> 
> I look with some distaste at this proposal.  If the goal is concensus, and
> if more than one person is not satisfied with the proposal, you should work
> harder to find a solution that is at least equally distasteful to everyone.

I agree completely. But I'm pointing out that if the board intends to use
consensus decision-making then the system of determining consensus needs
to be codified or else they will not be able to have ex-officio board
members. However I don't claim to have the one true system for codifying a
consensus decision-making process.

Options:

1) Traditional voting board with majority rule and an
   ex-officio (i.e. non-voting) position for the executive director
   who is an employee of the organization.

2) Consensus board with no ex-officio positions, i.e. meetings are 
   only open to voting members.

3) Consensus board using a codified system of consensus decision
   making that ensures that ex-officio members do not participate
   in the decision.

4) Consensus board with no codified system that simple muddles 
   through and handles the ex-officio member on an ad-hoc basis.

IMHO, only options 1, 2 and 3 are likely to lead to a strong,
stable board.

Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael at memra.com