Difference between revisions of "Talk:Adding Members"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Apple said ->I've been wondering if it's by design that the | + | Apple said ->I've been wondering if it's by design that the identity of current officers and board members must be actively inquired about? Maybe buried deep in meeting notes or annual reports? |
----- | ----- | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
----- | ----- | ||
Apple said ->I'm willing to support public fictions if they help me stay away from contemplating OD issues. Now if someone would build ideal OpAmps :) | Apple said ->I'm willing to support public fictions if they help me stay away from contemplating OD issues. Now if someone would build ideal OpAmps :) | ||
| + | ----- | ||
| + | Steve asks - what are 'OD' issues? I'm assuming not the Heroin kind of OD. Should we put the Board Members on the front page of the Wiki? I think this hasn't come up in the past as part of the 'small group' effect - everybody knows everybody, including who the officers are. I think we want to strive for open-ness and transparency as much as possible. | ||
Revision as of 08:48, 30 July 2015
Apple said ->I've been wondering if it's by design that the identity of current officers and board members must be actively inquired about? Maybe buried deep in meeting notes or annual reports?
There's no conspiracy. Necessity is the mother of invention; that's to say: it's that way because there's never been a need to publish that info beyond what is required by law.
Apple said ->I'm willing to support public fictions if they help me stay away from contemplating OD issues. Now if someone would build ideal OpAmps :)
Steve asks - what are 'OD' issues? I'm assuming not the Heroin kind of OD. Should we put the Board Members on the front page of the Wiki? I think this hasn't come up in the past as part of the 'small group' effect - everybody knows everybody, including who the officers are. I think we want to strive for open-ness and transparency as much as possible.
