On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:30:51PM +0000, Magdalen Berns wrote: > > > If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore > > bylaws > > > that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free > > to > > > make a case for that. California law probably would probably override > > that > > > idea, though. > > > > I tried to nicest way to let you see a different point of view, taking > > into account the previous failure to have any discussion with you. > > > > It seems you're not open in understanding what I mean. > > > > > This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent > > > (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with > > > using It? > > > > Yeah, just focus on whatever the bylaws might or not might take. Did you > > read my email? Did you make any effort to grasp what I'm trying to say? > > > > Your questions indicate you did not. > > > > The effort I made was to I ask what you were on about and that is still not > very clear.
I'll try in a different way: - there's apparently a different criteria being applied - you seem to focus on what the bylaws state This IMO skips an important part of trying to figure out why a different criteria is being applied. For instance, you mention that according to the bylaws it is not allowed to make a distinction. Further, it is not allowed by some court. I don't think you're right in asserting that. I might totally agree with you that having the distinction is wrong, but regarding this point I don't see it the same way. Especially regarding assumptions on what a judge would rule and so on. There's more to it than just bylaws. IMO you have too much of a programmers view on this. Could even be that standard practice trumps bylaws. IMO it is better to first focus on *why* a different criteria is applied and then figure out what to do, rather than ignoring the why and going for *if* they can do that. IMO if there's a valid concern then it really doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not. > Those following, might have noticed that this was done in the opening part > of the discussion and it seemed to be generally agreed that some interns do > make non-trivial contributions. At least, nobody seems to have disagreed > with that idea, anyway. Most interns seem to vanish quite quickly after their internship is over. Maybe not true at all anymore, there are a few exceptions, but that has been a topic of discussion for various years. I think more concretely specifying what membership committee expects is helpful. -- Regards, Olav _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
