Re: [Fsfe-uk] Re: Resignation from AFFS committee

[Ian Lynch]

On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 14:11 +0100, Kevin Donnelly wrote:
> On Monday 06 Jun 2005 13:27, Ian Lynch wrote:
> > I thnk we are getting the usual E-mail discussion polarisation here. If
> > its not one thing it must therefore be the most extreme opposite.
> 
> It would be reasonable to expect the governors of a school (for example) to 
> come to ad hoc decisions between meetings, in case of exigencies.  But in my 
> experience these decisions would then be minuted at some point in the future. 
>  
> If that's "extreme", I suspect most governing bodies are full of 
> extremists :-) 

>From this point of view it doesn't seem that anyone is really taking an
extreme position but bits of what they say might be construed that way
which is why we end up with a war ;-)

> > In principle significant decisions should be minuted at an appropriate
> > meeting. In some circumstances this will happen after the event. 
> 
> This is what I said in my last post - the "should be minuted" is the point 
> which some seem to be glossing over.  
> 
> Can the free software movement can dispense with organisational niceties just 
> because it is the free software movement?  This would appear to be the view 
> in some quarters.

Well it just seems to me that I'm on a lot of committees and we don't
seem to get all these points of order all the time. I was a school
governor in fact at one time. Its common practice for the Chairman of
Governors in a school to work quite closely with the Head as its
impractical to have too many full meetings of the governing body. If
every decision required such a meeting schools would grind to a halt. On
the otherhand, major decisions such as permanent exclusion of a student
will involve the governing body, a short term exclusion might not.
Taking on a new caretaker probably wouldn't involve the GB, appointing
the next head would and so on.

-- 
Ian Lynch <address@hidden>
ZMSL