On 31 Oct 2017 18:54, "Andreas Mantke" <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi Simon, Cor, all,

Am 31.10.2017 um 19:19 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Andreas Mantke <ma...@gmx.de
> <mailto:ma...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>     Hi Cor, all,
>     Am 31.10.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Cor Nouws:
>     > Hi Andreas,
>     >
>     > Andreas Mantke wrote on 31-10-17 13:44:
>     >
>     >> that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very close
>     >> or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc.
>     >
>     > In business, one often makes the most deals with people you're
>     > with ;)
>     > So let's try to all be friends and use the appropriate rules to
>     > personal relations being the stronger argument than rational
>     >
>     I'm not talking about not being friendly with each other (that's also
>     rule written in the statutes), but about the fact that TDF is an
>     organization with rules and a lot of credit based also on good
>     and transparent administration/organization.
> Andreas, do you have a specific request or proposal?

yes, as I already mentioned and quoted here:

"Thus the people acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of
witness because of a or economic dependence to a member of the the other

I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. Are you requesting
disqualification of a candidate?

And another recommendation that I think would be worth to follow:

"I think it would be too bad to have a longer break before one get
elected for another body."

I don't think that a good organization/community need to put this into
rules/statutes, but should have it in their DNA.

But that's not an actionable proposal. What should we do?


Reply via email to