[ogb-discuss] Meeting Minutes, OGB Call :: Wednesday 4th April

[johansen-osdev at sun.com]

> >>+1. And to throw in 2 more cents: I think it's safe to assume that the
> >>prevention of OGB-Paralysis -- like what resulted from the inflexibility
> >>demonstrated at today's meeting due to the invocation of a strict
> >>intepretation of the letter of section 6.7 -- is a very strong and
> >>universal desire. Therefore an agile resolution (read non-complex,
> >>non-resource-intensive, and, perhaps, non-perfect resolution) to this 
> >>issue
> >>is called for.
> >
> >Forgive me for being defensive, but I don't believe this interpretation is
> >incorrect, nor that that it led to any form of paralysis.
> 
> Clearly it did though.

Perhaps you could be more specific.  If I read Glynn's minutes
correctly, the OGB did the following:

1. Discussed the need to make meetings more open and brainstormed
possibilities for reaching this goal
2. Unanimously agreed that the meeting wasn't official
3. Unanimously agreed about ongoing meetings, provided 24 hour notice
was given
4. Unanimously agreed to let Alan update the current OGB webpages

Given that the board actually did stuff before it adjourned a meeting
that all participants agreed was unofficial, I'm having a difficult time
understanding how this counts as paralysis.  I could understand this
criticism if no agreement was reached or nothing was accomplished;
however, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I don't completely understand your criticism.  Were you expecting a more
ambitious agenda and a longer list of accomplishments?

-j