Disagreement of board members made public

Disagreement of board members made public

Disagree that a signed commitment is common.

I don't think he was saying a signed commitment is common for corporate boards, etc. Having worked for more than one company that embraced the idea, what I took him to mean is that "disagree and commit" is a standard practice for decisions made at companies. e.g., if the company decides it's going to phase out Product A in favor of Product B, the people who championed "A" need to commit to the decision after it's made.

FWIW, that's a reasonable practice generally—it can be harmful if a company has individuals or leaders who continue to argue against doing something that's been decided. It can also be reasonable in communities, where you might have one or more holdouts after a community has decided to do (or not do) something and somebody keeps arguing the point or trying to slow or block work.

But treating it as a gag order that prevents people from even giving their opinion if it dissents from the final decision. I'm not sure that is the best approach for an organization like OSI.