Adam: I think the suggestion from Graham was to delve as deeply as we have done in the past and no further. We aren't trying to find new ways to keep people out, but Paul did set a precedence in the Beau/Silex vote and as such that same concern should be just as relevant now.
If we start delving further we might get to "they can't be a secretary because they stayed on their sofa one time" levels and we don't need to do that. :) On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 1:19:38 PM UTC-4, Adam Culp wrote: > > Oh my, would this extend to personal relationship, which could > theoretically also carry influence? > > How complex should we delve? > > Regards, > Adam Culp > > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 12:33:01 PM UTC-4, Woody Gilk wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Hari K T <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > There is another question you need to ask, what about other secretary? >> They >> > are not lead of a project, but does that mean they don't have any >> influence >> > on voting members ? >> >> Hari, >> >> To my knowledge, none of the current secretaries are associated with >> any member project. All secretaries are required to disclose conflicts >> of interest. >> >> Regards, >> -- >> Woody Gilk >> http://about.me/shadowhand >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PHP Framework Interoperability Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/php-fig/8fea8a88-6246-4648-9c6d-3155b9772dfa%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
