Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AOB items aren't made visible to the membership in general.
Really? I know about epsilon's worth of US corporation governance, but
here in Finland all AOB items are noted in the minutes.
I agree with Joerg and Joshua that AOB is *the* place for news and
n
Joshua D. Drake writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> We have been doing AOB at meetings since at least my 3rd meeting. I
> specifically requested it in fact. It makes things a lot easier on
> everyone when something simple needs to be pointed out for the record
> but doesn't need a lot o
MJ Ray wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm optimistic about the treasurer's reports and the two resolutions
passed, but I'm really disappointed by the apparent adoption of "aob".
> AOB hasn't appeared on SPI agendas since 1998. I feel that's good and
> healthy, so I'm
David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> The resolution you reference is:
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/2007-01-16-iwj.5.html
>
> Which does not preclude AOB, specifically exempting emergency business
> without qualifying it.
It does preclude AOB of non-emergenc
> David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
>>> Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
>>
>> We've been down this road, we've had this argument.
>
> Oh, and: we had this argument and you lost the vote. Resolution
> 2007-01-16.iwj.5 was the result.
On 11513 March 1977, MJ Ray wrote:
> AOB hasn't appeared on SPI agendas since 1998. I feel that's good and
> healthy, so I'm disappointed by this back-sliding. None of the board
> stood on a ticket that included hiding stuff from members by allowing
> last-minute unannounced business, did they?
David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
>
> We've been down this road, we've had this argument.
Oh, and: we had this argument and you lost the vote. Resolution
2007-01-16.iwj.5 was the result. It was a
David Graham writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> We've been down this road, we've had this argument. AOB is important for
> the function of the board and banning it is an utterly useless and
> counter-productive artificial barrier.
I don't understand why it is important. Why can the ma
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Meeting log for 2008-09-17"):
> I don't understand why it is important. Why can the matters raised in
> AOB not be dealt with in an identical way informally or by email to
^^
I should expand on this.
If the only reason w
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
We've been down this road, we've had this argument. AOB is important for
the function of the board and banning it is an utterly useless and
counter-productive artificial barrier.
- -
David "cdlu" Graham - [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:11:30AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Please don't permit AOB at meetings.
In my opinion, that is too high a bar. I think that AOB should likely
be rare, but it may need to be included anyway, because sometimes
things happen that are surprising, and the Board does need to make
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm optimistic about the treasurer's reports and the two resolutions
> >> passed, but I'm really disappointed by the apparent adoption of "aob".
[...]
> > Am I right that "AOB" is short for "Any Other Business", refering to
> > discussions that deal wit
12 matches
Mail list logo
