In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martin Schulze writes: >Nils Lohner wrote: > >> >> ARTICLE ONE - ORGANIZATION >> >> ARTICLE TWO - PURPOSE >> >> These two articles may not be changed, as they are taken from SPI's >> >> Certificate of Incorporation. >> > >> >I'd like to remind you of my thoughts from 12/27/98: > >> Joey- >> >> READ THE LINES ABOVE, STATING THAT THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS MAY NOT BE >> MODIFIED BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKEN FROM OUR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND >> MAY NOT BE MODIFIED FOR LEGAL REASONS. I HAVE POSTED THIS COMMENT IN >> RESPONSE TO YOUR SECTION TWO COMMENTS SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY. > >You don't have to shout! You should also read what I said "I'd like >to remind you of my thoughts". I would have phrased something else >if I wanted to change something in the first two articles. Be kind! >Always. >
It's just that I've mentioned that time and time again, and am just a little frustrated that I need to dig into this issue again. I've put a lot of time and effort into this, and have included the fact that those sections can not be changed numerous times in mails to -general regarding the bylaws. You did say in your mail: >ARTICLE TWO - PURPOSE ... > >Thus some paragraphes need to be changed: so they looked like changes (not just thoughts) to me. I hope you can understand my frustration- the fact that Art. 1, 2 are unchangeable was mentioned not once but several times in different mails (and at the top of this changes themselves) so I just didn't know how else to point it out. After all I didn't want to go to VT100 Flashing codes, and I felt a lot less frustrated after typing a few sentences in caps- really! :) >> As far as the remaining comments are concerned, I'll work through them and >> integrate them when I get the chance (in the next few days). They're good >> comments. I really would have appreciated it though if you could have made >> these either during the public discussion period on spi-general, or when I >> posted the changes to the board in preparation for the meeting. I've spent >> several weeks working on this, and getting all of these comments (even > >I'm sorry, but important exams made it impossible. I hoped to be able >to work on SPI as well but failed. > Understandable, but a little frustrating nonetheless. But the comments are very useful, and I think will make important contributions/distinctions in the bylaws, so I really don't mind making the changes- this was probably just spill-over frustration from above. I don't get frustrated easily (or often), so I hope everyone'll excuse my little blowing-off of steam :) And apologies for the caps. I really did feel better afterwards though... Nils.
