The matter was introduced in the last few minutes of the Board meeting, and then the vote was called on the secret list after I had started my Thursday travel cycle - I was alerted to it this time, which is good. Since I am only able to routinely handle TDF mail from my office desktop (as certain directors object to using certain tools for TDF business and I am complying), I have only just had the chance to look. The documents are a first-draft that has not been adequately reviewed by the Board and I am concerned about that and at the Board meeting requested the lawyer review be an open process. Like you I believe something so important should be discussed by the Trustees as there is a great risk of deepening rather than healing the current divisions.
My request was not adequately reflected in the motion and I thus would have voted “no” had it still been open today, but since the group of directors which Sophie originally nominated all vote together, and since any attempt at improvement would be met with the usual hostility rather than any attempt to reach consensus, I don’t think this would have made a material difference to the outcome.
In general I am very concerned that all Board business has moved to secret 72 hour votes at random times without discussion or any attempt at consensus, as well as by the way votes are conducted. It means that the Board is effectively in session 24/7 and also biases towards the majority who never need to discuss motions.


- it should probably be run through a spell-checker: is the original document available in an editable form ?