Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
If there were something in the constitution detailing decision-making
process around foundation documents and their interpretation, it would
have made this whole conflict easier to resolve. But so far as I can
tell, there isn't, apart from application to
Anthony Towns wrote:
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 04:11:02PM +0100, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Changes for the current draft:
+ In case the DPL and ex-secretary can't agree on an candidate for new
secretary, the decision is made by the developers in a GR, and not by
the SPI board.
Would
Changes for the current draft:
+ In case the DPL and ex-secretary can't agree on an candidate for new
secretary, the decision is made by the developers in a GR, and not by
the SPI board.
Would this GR be conducted by the outgoing secretary? If the reason for
the disagreement is that the
Anthony Towns wrote:
There are two issues here. One is to work out direction most people
want to go in. The other is to make sure we don't make fundamental
changes to ourselves with signficant dissent.
What about other cases where a supermajority is required -- eg, the
technical committee
Anthony Towns wrote:
There are two issues here. One is to work out direction most people
want to go in. The other is to make sure we don't make fundamental
changes to ourselves with signficant dissent.
What about other cases where a supermajority is required -- eg, the
technical committee
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In our past votes, we've variously had:
Constituion: Yes/No/Further Discussion
Election 1: [nominees] + None of the above
Logo License: Single/Dual/Further Discussion
New Logo: [submissions, including current logo] + Further
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes:
In our past votes, we've variously had:
Constituion: Yes/No/Further Discussion
Election 1: [nominees] + None of the above
Logo License: Single/Dual/Further Discussion
New Logo: [submissions, including current logo] +
7 matches
Mail list logo
