[CCWG-ACCT] Continued Counsel Dialogue

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Avri,


>>  The critical issue in my mind is how many steps we can take inside the organizations process to remedy before having to resort to the ultimate nastyness - appearing before a judge. I think each trip to court is a failure to be avoided.  Our model needs to deal properly with shared decision making while allowing for problem resolution in a way that avoids such failures.

I agree.   We should be focussing on developing our bylaws as our operating rules, to incorporate the community powers sought by the CCWG.

We then have a simple independent arbitration mechanism for dealing with cases where there is a disagreement over the interpretation of the bylaws.   

Finally we have a mechanism for taking legal action against the Board if it does not abide by the arbitration decision  (this should have a probability of less than 0.1% of ever happening).   

It seems we are focussed far too much time on debating the 0.1% situation, and not focussing enough on a set of bylaws that leverages the community structures that have already in most cases have been operating for more than 15 years.  

For the avoidance of doubt I and the Board have been willing all along to update the bylaws to reflect the new accountability mechanisms requested by the community.   The bit that has seemed incredibly strange to me is the assumption that the Board will not abide by its bylaws.   You should never elect people to the Board that won't abide by the bylaws, and you should remove people that don't abide by the bylaws - it is that simple to me.   I get that there are situations where the Board and community may disagree on whether the Board is following the bylaws - but we have an enhanced IRP process proposed by the CCWG to deal with that.


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin