Having the Planning Council mailing list guess what the
fiduciary responsibilities of the Board may or may not be doesn’t seem
like a great use of time. Trust me, this is well worn ground.
On the other hand, it is Friday afternoon and the weather is
gorgeous…. J
How the conversation got to here from the idea of defining and
enforcing technical requirements for projects to participate in a
release just boggles my mind.
From: eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:eclipse.org-planning-council-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Scott
Lewis
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:51 PM
To: eclipse.org-planning-council
Subject: Re: [eclipse.org-planning-council] A suggested topic for
Planning Council Discussion
Hi Doug,
Doug Schaefer wrote:
I’m not sure the Board would agree that this isn’t
about business.
I'm sure some/many of them would think it's about business...specifically *their*
business. But the EF is not a business, and the Board members are not
representing shareholders.
At the end of the day the Board decides.
IANAL, but I don't think the Board can decide to have a non-profit organization
(EF) do something that is clearly/obviously in the commercial interests of
*some/one* of the member organizations. Again IANAL so I may be wrong
about details...but I think the Board does have responsibilities that are not
the same as the feduciary responsibilities of a commercial organization's
Board.
Scott
