Actually, no nothing is being "hidden" and I'm not sure what could possibly happen at a BOG meeting that would violate the COC or COR.  Remember...Board meetings of corporations are NOT open to the public (or even to the shareholders (read owners) of a company).  They are a place where business gets done.  The minutes are kept as a reference of what happened at that meeting for use by the founders and/or BOG members who either weren't present or want to go back and see what happened.  Nothing in the VATSIM rules requires that a meeting be "open" to the membership and there are some very good reasons why it should not be.  Executive session is a totally different issue.  As articulated in 2.07(F) of the CoR, the Founders recognized there would be times when issues being discussed should remain confidential and nor be made public.  That is what Executive Session exists for.  The open session part of the BOG meetings is made public via the minutes (as required by 2.07(D) of the CoR).

The minutes accurately reflect what issues were discussed at a meeting, what decisions were made and what votes were taken (with their results).  If you read all of the minutes of previous BoG meetings, you get a pretty good feel for what is discussed.  99% of the discussions/votes are simply "the business" of VATSIM...things like approving software, changes to VATSIM policies, and strategic-level decisions for the network.  

At this meeting we had:

- an update by Kyle Ramsey on the status of the Pilot Rating Scheme.  We then spent a good deal of time discussing the technical changes that would be required (new data fields in CERT, web interfaces to grant the ratings, etc.).  Lastly, we spent time discussing how we would get this pilot training system accurately translated and distributed to parts of the world where English is not the native language but where we need to grow as a network (Asia for example).  We also discussed when we would advertise to fill the VP, Pilot Training BOG position that is presently vacant with Kyle covering it as "acting" (much as I covered VP, SOA for several months while I was VP, Operations back in 2006).
- Florian gave us an update on the status of the new website.  How the server was handling the load, whether we had a need to move the site to a more high-powered server to support additional functionality, etc.  We also discussed making some changes to the website to make it easier to find certain areas/documents (for example, did you know that what you see on the menus changes based on whether or not you are logged in?  I did not realize this until another BOG member brought it up and we discussed whether that was something we wanted to maintain or not...and if so, how to we ensure the membership knows this so they log in?)
- Terry gave us an update on commercial activities that want to use the VATSIM network.  Specifically an FBO/flight school has approached the network requesting use of the network to assist in flight training.  Terry had consulted with VATSIM's attorney and was briefing us on what (and why) the VATSIM position on this kind of activity was.
- We had a discussion on how/if we should recognize senior Staff members who have contributed much to VATSIM and now "retired" from staff positions.  There is a recognition by the BOG that there are some people who have truly done A LOT for VATSIM and they may warrant some kind of formal recognition.  We discussed a number of different ways this might be done (granting use of a special, reserved callsign, a special rating, a "wall of fame" on the website, a special avatar or rank in the forums, etc.).
- We had a discussion on if there is a need to add to the code of conduct or code of regulations with regards to people who are in staff positions at VATSIM.  Those people have unique access to databases, forums, etc. yet all present regulations/rules are written for "normal" members meaning mis-use of those privileges is not cleanly a violation of the rules (other than the general ones like A.12 of the CoC).  We also discussed the fact we expect to hold staff to a higher standard (for example with regards to conduct in forums and online) but there isn't presently anything that lays that out in writing with the exception of a document sent to all supervisors by VP, Supervisors when they are appointed supervisors.
- We discussed the results of a 2 month test in VATPAC where the FSS position (and extended range) was approved to cover most of Australia with a single controller to maximize ATC availability in the area.  Server loads, how that one position logging in affected the server he/she was logged into as well as the data exchange to that FSD server was reviewed with an eye to if this could be something we authorize in the future for other parts of the network.
- We discussed the need for and a plan to develop a COOP (Continuity of Operations) Plan for VATSIM.  Basically a set of backups and accesses to ensure things don't get brought to a halt if one or more key staff members suddenly go offline (family emergency, hurricane, earthquake, death, etc.).  It's a problem we've had to address and we're going to develop a formal COOP plan because it is the right thing to do for the network.

There really is no secret cabal sitting around tossing chicken bones and discussing/gossiping about various members.  To be honest, we don't have the time or the inclination to do that kind of stuff...we have enough work to do as it is!  I can't speak for what happened before I joined the BoG, but since I joined the minutes have accurately reported what happened at BOG meetings and since CoR 2.07(D) requires them, I suspect that has been the case since the very first BOG meeting.  

As far as "only the EC portion being confidential and that being why we don't want to release a recording", that simply isn't the case.  By EC I assume you actually mean "executive session" where we discuss things that are either sensitive, proprietary or confidential and those things are (and always have been) discussed in Executive Session as authorized by the CoR for just that reason.  I already told you what reasons several BoG members put forward for why releasing a recording would not be a good idea:

(1) it might stifle discussion
(2) an informed opinion that doing so might violate some laws

Bottom line is that recordings are not typically released of Board meetings of any organization (public or privately held) that I know of.  Minutes of those meetings are typically required by law at least in the United States and those minutes may or may not be released publicly based on law, the articles of incorporation, or bylaws of the specific organization in question.  VATSIM is fully in compliance with those requirements by releasing the minutes of meetings and for some good reasons has determined that it should not release a recording of the meetings.  Period.  

I'm not sure why you feel the need for a recording is so essential and if you also feel that the Board of Directors of General Electric, Boeing, Coca Cola, the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts of America or any other organization should release a recording of their meetings, but I suspect you would get the same answer from them you are getting from VATSIM.  If you would care to discuss this further, I'm happy to move it to email as I don' think a forum is an appropriate place for a conversation between two people and I believe this thread has served it's purpose, to wit: In another thread I had said I would look into doing something and report back and this thread reports back on the results.

all the best,
Dave

In another thread in this forum a number of questions were asked about BOG Meetings in general and the minutes in particular.  One of the questions asked was if it would be possible for us to post a recording of the meeting that people could download and listen to as well as a suggestion that we hold all executive session business off until the end of the meeting.

I replied that we would give both of these things a shot and (assuming no members of the BOG objected) look at posting a recording of the open session following the March BOG meeting.

This post is just an update to those following that issue on what happened.

1. The BOG meeting was held yesterday (3/20) from approximately 1200-1400Z (exact times will be in the minutes but I don't remember them off the top of my head).
2. The agenda items posted here were addressed.
3. We delayed going into executive session until the end.

We learned some interesting things.  

First, delaying going into executive session until the end is not ideal.  The problem is that when a discussion is ongoing and then drifts into an area where it needs to be in executive session, stopping the discussion and waiting until the end of the meeting can (and did) result in people losing track of the discussion, the points they wanted to make, etc.  I think an analogy would be in a court when an issue needs to be discussed by the judge and lawyers without the jury present.  As most of you know, the judge will put the court in recess and remove the jury and then hear the discussion or (if necessary) meet with them in chambers during the recess, but they don't wait to do these things at the end of the day (which would be more efficient), they take them as they come.  I think in the future we will approach this two ways:

1. When writing the agenda we will try to put items that HAVE to be in executive session at the end of the agenda (and next to each other).
2. When in the course of open session discussion we drift into stuff that needs to be handled in executive session, we will roll into executive session.

Second, we learned that how the minutes themselves have been prepared over the years at VATSIM has changed based on who was writing them.  Some of the VP, Comms minute takers wrote very detailed minutes showing "who said what" -- not quite a verbatim transcript but pretty close.  Others wrote a more general summary of what was discussed...and this has been the case with recent meetings.  In going back and looking at all the minutes ever prepared for VATSIM BOG meetings (something I had not done since I first applied to join the BOG several years ago), the differences were quite clear.

With regards to posting a recording of the open session part of the meeting, several BOG members objected to our doing so for a number of reasons.  As a result, the recording of the meeting will NOT be made available for download.  What the BOG did agree to was providing more detailed minutes (similar to the detailed ones mentioned above), so that readers could clearly see what BOG member took what position, said what, etc. during the meeting.

I expect those minutes will be completed and up on the website within 2 weeks (may be sooner, but there is a major Typhoon headed for the part of Australia where Steven lives and it may be he evacuates or loses power...needless to say VATSIM minutes are not at the top of his list right now).

I realize that this solution (detailed minutes vice a recording) may not be satisfactory to all, but hope the immediate feedback at least addresses some of the concerns.

all the best,
Dave

IMO, these updates are rather useless if not part of an actual official update.  The vast majority of VATSIM users do not check the forums, and thus will be completely unaware of the availability of the download at all.

We've touched base with the individual in question as well as some of the folks working some other client issues.

Dave

I've already acknowledged that a number of posters in this forum (including you) are convinced that all the founders, all the BOG and all the EC are completely screwed up, lousy leaders who have no idea what they are doing or what is best for the network but that you folks have all the answers....  As far as making it right or appropriate...that's in the eye of the beholder and your opinion of VATSIM's leadership is already pretty clear.  

I'd also like to be shown a single time when I've ever shown a person the door or told them to resign when their opinion is different than my own...has never happened!  What I have publicly stated on a number of occasions is that some VATSIM policies are NOT going to change and that people have a choice...it is THEIR decision whether they can live with those policies or not.  If they can't then the would probably be happier somewhere else.

The fact you continue to twist people's words and statements to reflect your preconceived notions and opinions doesn't change what the other words were.  I challenge any person in this forum to find a post I've made in this forum (or any other VATSIM forum for that matter) where I have (to use your words)

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Regardless, you encourage resignations and show people the door whose views differ from your own.[/quote]
  I have NEVER encouraged anyone to resign OR shown them the door (presumably that means fired them or kicked them out of VATSIM) if their views differ from my personal views.  At this point your continued attacks on me are no longer just annoying, based on the fact they are categorically untrue, they are rapidly becoming slanderous in violation of the standard of conduct we ALL have to comply with.  I'd also share with you that you don't even have a clue what my personal opinion is on most of the VATSIM policies.  Would  it surprise you to know that I don't agree with all of them?  There are several I disagree with, but I have a choice...I either implement them because they ARE the network policies or (if I can't live with doing that) I step down.  To date there has been no policy I disagree with that I find so onerous that I can't live with it.  

Near as I can tell, no Founder, BOG Member or EC member in this thread has attacked you in the way you have continued to attack them, let alone told untruths as you have done in the past and have done in the post immediately preceding this one.  

So here's the challenge to Alex and the rest of the VATUSA community -- If you can find a single post in ANY VATSIM-related forum where I have ENCOURAGED a person to RESIGN from their staff position in VATSIM OR ENCOURAGED a person to RESIGN (quit) VATSIM OR FIRED a PERSON from a staff position OR KICKED a person out of VATSIM because THEY DID NOT AGREE WITH MY PERSONAL OPINION then

I WILL IMMEDIATELY RESIGN AS PRESIDENT OF VATSIM.    

Start your searches now, when you come up with nothing, I would hope you'd be man enough to apologize for your lies and slander.

Dave

edited because upon re-reading Alex's implied statements I just got even more incensed at the lies and mistruths...I have no problem with the criticism (it comes with the job) but the lies really torque me off....

Some interesting posts here.  It really feels like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

- Like Richard, I get emailed all the time.  I generally try to answer the question if it is a request for information.  If a request for assistance, I try to steer them to the appropriate resource/level (ATM, DD, RD, DCRM, VATSIM forums, PRC, etc.).  Can't tell you how many times I have gotten a nasty gram back saying "thanks for nothing...you are no help (or words to that effect)".  Classic is a forgotten password when I direct them to the forgot password link and (if that doesn't work) ask them to submit a trouble ticket to membership.

- I see posts in the various forums and will try to answer, especially if I have information that others may not have that changes the dynamics of the issue.  Yes it is a "view from 50,000 feet" but that doesn't mean it is wrong and may mean it is actually more accurate as to the true state of affairs, especially on network-wide issues.    In the last few days I've been raked over the coals in both this form and the ZAU forum. Maybe as VATSIM President I should just monitor these forums but not respond and limit my responses to the VATSIM forums?

- Whenever there has been something directive in nature I needed sent down to an ATM/FIR Chief or a DD, I have always worked through the relevant RD and DD (if appropriate).  Generally sending the message to the RD and asking him to look into the situation or pass the info on.  Sometimes it has been a conversation between the ATM, DD, RD and myself with all cc'd on emails.  Based on some of these threads...some people feel I am only engaging when there is a problem (think it was called "seagull leadership") but that is really the only time I should be directly engaged with those below the level of RD, otherwise I am cutting the RD out and some would call what I was doing micromanagement.

So on the one hand I can support subordinate levels of the organization, work through them and be seen as unapproachable, unhelpful, disengaged, seagull management.  On the other hand I am undercutting the RD, DD and ATM, removing all their power, a micromanager who is interfering at the local level.  My belief (and approach) has always been that the truth is somewhere in the middle and I need to balance between the two.  I never send an email to the DD or ATM directly.  I go to the RD and ask him to look into it and report back.  When he does it frequently turns into a multi-level discussion but that is always done with everyone on the email so people aren't cut out.  By the same token, other than when that happens, I don't think I should ever be engaged directly with DDs or ATMS.  I come to the forums to be approachable to the general membership who (as Richard posted in the other thread) frequently come directly to members of the BOG when they have a problem they feel is being ignored by those above them...and even then my first response is to go to the RD and ask "what is going on?"...

What approach do you all think is the right one??

Dave

Just as an aside (and not commenting on any person's opinion in this thread), standard management/leadership theory (and practice) is that no person can effectively more than 7 direct reports...especially if each direct report does something significantly different than the others).

Even the "world is flat" authors like Friedman have generally come to the conclusion seven is about the largest group that can be effectively managed.  That is pretty close to the structure VATSIM has now:

Board of Governors each lead no more than seven people
VP Regions (member of the BOG) has six RDs under him
The Six RD's each have somewhere between three and four Divisions under them
The Diivision Directors are where the organization starts to flatten as some of them have a GREAT number of FIRs under them.

The implementation of Divisions is where things have gotten quite interesting and VATEUD and VATUSA present very different models of how things are managed.  In VATEUD, the Division chief is an interface between the FIR chiefs to the RD, handles administrative things (CERT, etc.).  In VATUSA, the Division Chief has a staff which duplicates many of the things done at the FIR/ARTCC level due to a desire to standardize things (thus the VATUSA TA, Events Manager, etc.).

I am not saying one is better than another, but they are different.  VATEUD takes on the role of primarily information dissemination and coordination.  VATUSA takes on the role of managing the ARTCCs in far greater detail than VATEUD would ever consider doing.  Different models...

In closing, there also seems to be some confusion about the EC and the RDs.  The EC IS the RDs combined with VP, Regions.  If you want to use a governmental model, I think the equivalent would be:

VATSIM President - Prime Minister
BOD - the Cabinet members (each with a different portfolio)
EC - Parliment with each EC member being an RD representing his/her regions
Division Directors would probably be something like County Managers or Town Council Presidents...

all good,
Dave

Dave,

That's a great idea. I hope you actually do this. I mean, it can't really hurt anything and if there is not a big response, then all means, please stop. But hopefully you guys at least give it a try.

Don't knock it till 'ya try it,
Nick

We'll give it a shot with the March Meeting and will post a link to download the recording (assuming I get no objections from the rest of the BOG.  I don't expect any but don't want to speak unilaterally for the Board).