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

[Roy T. Fielding]

On Apr 5, 2007, at 6:50 AM, James Carlson wrote:
> That's not what the constitution actually says.  It says that the
> meetings are open to all members, provided that their attendance
> doesn't interfere.  It does not say "open to invited members" or any
> other such qualifications for those who might attend.

I quoted exactly what it says.  Heck, I wrote what it says.
What's more important, you are thinking that it says something
in English, when what it means in legalese is quite different.
The constitution is written in legalese because that is what the
few people who commented on the first version wanted.

The only thing it means is: if a member does decide to attend
a board meeting, that member cannot be refused access simply
because the board doesn't like them, doesn't want them to find out
about a decision, or simply is unaware that the meetings are not
required to be private (the default for private organizations).
They may be refused access if their attendance interferes with
the ten slots required by the OGB to conduct its business, or if
the attendees try to disrupt the meeting in any way.

That's all.  It does not mean that all members need to be able
to attend any meeting before it can be considered an OGB meeting.
It is the OGB that is meeting -- everyone else are merely observers
and do not have a voice unless they are recognized by the chair.

This is significantly different than "open meeting" laws, which
are an entirely different beast.  The constitution would have
been worded differently if open meetings were expected .

....Roy