Re: [OSCOM] Re: Michi resigns from OSCOM [Fwd: [Board] OSCOM ordinary meeting of members minutes]

On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:35 AM, Michael Wechner wrote:

> Henri Bergius wrote:
>
>> On Feb 24, 2006, at 1:35, Michael Wechner wrote:
>>
>>> OSCOM intended to help people look across the fence and maybe  
>>> even  pass it. And I think we accomplished this and still do.
>>
>>
>> This has been a worthy goal. However, I have to still point out  
>> that  little has been done to further this goal during 2005 and  
>> most of 2004.
>
>
> just read the minutes and the mailing lists and on will see who has  
> done little and what has been accomplished. That's all I will  
> comment on this.

You are totally right on this point.  As I said repeatedly in the  
minutes, I've done squat and don't deserve to be on the board  
anymore.  I believe I summarized it as "I suck". :^)  You deserve  
better than what you got from me in 2005, and for that I'm sorry.

>> If the association does not operate,
>
>
> it would operate nicely, but not with the people currently sitting  
> on the board. This is why I suggested to have Sandro
> Groganz on the board, because he is a member actually doing things.  
> So I don't see any reason why one should dissolve OSCOM.
> OSCOM was started by Eric and myself and we were also only two  
> people. That's all I have to say on this.

Nobody on the board claimed that we should be board members in the  
future.  It's clear who is "actually doing things": you and Sandro  
are, and the rest of us aren't.  That's not fair to you nor Sandro.

Regarding the question of dissolution, though, it is a point that  
needed to be addressed:

1) We had an annual member meeting, and one non-board member showed up.

2) We felt that board elections were unlikely to produce the minimum  
candidates per the bylaws.

OSCOM-the-idea is still good.  OSCOM-the-legal-entity, though,  
deserves discussion.  Little member activity and little board  
activity means little organization activity.  This is a valid issue  
to discuss and act on.

I think there are 3 choices for the way forward, based on the bylaws:

1) Conduct a board election.  If there are 7 or more candidates, and  
we get enough votes to confirm the board, then all is well and normal.

2) Make a proposal to the membership to reduce the board size to two  
people.  Have a membership vote and amend the bylaws.

3) Pull the plug on the server in a month and have the current board  
dissolve itself and the legal entity.

At the end of the meeting, it was proposed to extend the current  
board long enough to sort out (1) and (2).

FWIW, here's my position.  I have always thought OSCOM was a neat  
idea.  I put a lot of time into it the first couple of years.   
Lately, though, I put time into other things.  I'd love to see OSCOM  
have active leadership, and if there is, I will accept tasks given to  
me.  However, I can't be the one to generate activity, interest, and  
enthusiasm.  As such, I shouldn't be on the board.

Michael, I know we have let you down by our inactivity.  You're a  
great person and you and Eric hatched something that is a noble  
idea.  If you and Sandro feel up to the task, I'll do what I can to  
help in the next 6 months on (1) or (2).

--Paul