And we'll go over it again. I agree we do not need to resolve these past issues here, but we must learn from them. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jul 12, 2015, at 19:05, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear George
With respect, we've been over this ground before. In general, past practice, while interesting is not relevant to our discussion. We are designing an accountability mechanism to bind the Board and community going forward under changed circumstances. In doing so we have been positing (through the stress test process) some modes of failure that we might anticipate. The bounds of that consideration are the bounds of reasonableness and expectation. We cannot defend against all risks and some risks are more likely than others. For that reason we've not considered a response to the zombie apocalypse :-). But we have (and in my view must) consider many situations that have not occurred in the past as risks that may eventuate in the future. For me, past disagreements with the Board serve only one purpose -- to be a plausible predictor for likely future disputes. At a minimum, the accountability mechanisms must address perceived past accountability failures -- i.e. these lists -- but we don't need to spend too much time dredging up old disputes and resolving them factually. All of them (even the ones with contended facts) are plausible future scenarios that would need to be addressed even had they not previously been perceived to have occurred.
As I said, we've had the "how bad is the Board" discussion before. I confess I have played the game a bit myself. But in the end it isn't the question. Even assuming the current Board is filled with saints who never have erred, they will not be the future Board, who may be saints as well, but who may be sinners.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig [...]