Le Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:18:34 +0100,
Florian Effenberger <[email protected]> a écrit :

> Hi Charles,
> 
> Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2012-02-27 13:11:
> > Well, I disagree. I think that if you look at our present bylaws
> > they're mostly valid but only specific things need to be modified
> > and simplified.
> 
> I am talking about the "Community Bylaws" that are mentioned in our 
> statutes. Those we need to have according to the statutes, and those 
> should contain doubled content, I think this is rather important, so
> my points stay valid. :-) It's more a legal issue here.
> 

Okay, so you need specific added content to the Statutes, am I getting
this right?

> What we can do, in addition, is a combined document that (legally not 
> binding, not referenced in the statutes) outlines all rules in a
> single document.
> 
> However, first, we need the community bylaws, IMHO in the way I 
> described it and the statutes require it.

the community bylaws we have, we need them to be modified a bit . So we
could do the following:
* The statutes + the community bylaws that are relevant in them (the
  "lightweight" version)
* The community bylaws as we know them, on the wiki but we need some
  points to be modified.

Did I get this right?

Best,
Charles. 

> 
> Florian
> 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Member of the Board of Directors,
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Reply via email to