I would remind Matthew that the long experience of many boards was that the
membership generally didn't want to be bothered with the details of what
was done on their behalf. Not having been involved for a while I can't
guarantee things haven't changed, but I'd be surprised if they had, making
Matthew an honourable exception to the rule ;-)  S

Steve Holden

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:42 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@python.org> wrote:

> On 25.05.2016 17:20, Matthew Dixon Cowles wrote:
> > Marc-Andre,
> >
> >> We did consult the existing sponsor members
> >
> > I'm sorry. perhaps I should have said: I'm surprised that the board
> > didn't consult the non-sponsor membership. Can you tell me the
> > thinking behind that?
> As Ewa mentioned: We did have a discussion on the psf-vote list,
> where all voting members are subscribed, prior to implementing
> the change.
> Does that answer your question ?
> If not, perhaps you could explain what you believe should have
> been done and wasn't.
> Changes to bylaws are usually implemented by the board. They can
> also be put up to vote with the voting members and for larger changes,
> the board will generally take that approach.
> In this particular case, this wasn't deemed necessary, as the
> change only affects the existing sponsor members and there was no
> opposition on the psf-vote list, nor from the sponsor members
> themselves.
> Cheers,
> --
> Marc-Andre Lemburg
> Director
> Python Software Foundation
> http://www.python.org/psf/
> http://www.malemburg.com/
> _______________________________________________
> PSF-Community mailing list
> PSF-Community@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/psf-community
PSF-Community mailing list

Reply via email to