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

Come on.... Don't be hard on yourselves..

I like Michi's FOSCOM idea.... That seems like good direction.

Paul Everitt wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://oscom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
>