According to the LA Times, the Boy Scouts USA Board, you know, that paramilitary organization that has been hiding the incidents of pedophilia by its scout leaders, is going to consider whether it should drop its exclusion of gays as possible members and leaders. On the one hand I can't understand why folks who are gay want to be "allowed-in" to an organization that has stood its ground on exluding this population but perhaps that's a different conversation.
More important for this topic: according to the story, the Scouts Board is going to consider lifting the ban and make it ok for local chapters to individually consider their position on permitting gays to join. Wow, big move! Instead of taking a firm position that the chapters should permit gays, the National, standard-setting body is going to only not restrict chapters.
Is this great governance? Does not governance of a national organization require the provision of more definitive direction? Does not governance of a national organization require the provision of clear values? Is not taking a position really governance? I for one don't believe so. This is no better or different governance than saying: hey, if you want to do harm, create injustices, whatever, go ahead - that's up to you.