[maemo-community] [HFB] Some thoughts concerning "rules of engagement" that fall outside of the Bylaws document...

[From: twilight312 at gmail.com]

> We (well, I) don't.   But if they are wrong, and the law forbids any
> non-voice conferencing, it seems quite discriminatory to me (for
> instance it means no one with a speech or hearing disability can serve
> on the board) and I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged.
> 
> In light of this, are we sure we want the foundation incorporated in
> Pennsylvania?   Clearly we want to be able to have IRC meetings (it's
> even written in the bylaws), is there some benefit in being in PA that
> trumps this?
> 
> L.

Absolutely agree - it seems to me, that in our case, using audio-focused way of Communicating will decrease productivity of Board a lot (much less thing "talked out" in given timeframe of meeting), not to mention problems like audio disortions over lower quality connection access of some members, fact, that more people are fluent on english writing (as opposed to speaking), and mentioned disabilities.

Can't it be resolved, by simply meeting via preffered method (IRC for examle), and then "legalising" decisions by summary meeting over audio? This way, all things leading to decisions, would be made using "productive" way of communicating, yet, everything required by law, would be then (re)proposed and agreed on (short) sound-only meetings.

What PA based lawyer will tell about that? Leag! Feasible?

/Estel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20121024/5dfc4978/attachment.htm>