On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 09:59 -0500, Paul Varner wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 13:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> > 
> >     If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a 
> >     new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one 
> >     year' is then reset from that point.
> > 
> > musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> > meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> > 
> > Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? I 
> > look forward to hearing your advice.
> 
> Clarify the GLEP so that it refers to reqularly scheduled meetings only.
> I see no reason to kick the council out and rehold elections over a
> miscommunicated special meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> Paul

It's at least as hard to modify the GLEP as it is to follow it.  And I
don't think we want to be in the business of changing policies then
applying the new policies retroactively.  If we do that, what's the
point of having policies in the first place?  And, as ciaranm (one of
the GLEP's authors) pointed out, the GLEP requires at least one open
meeting per month, not regularly scheduled meetings.  This month,
Council scheduled two meetings, and the GLEP applies to all Council
meetings.

It's very hard to see how this meeting was "miscommunicated" since it
was discussed in the 08.v.08 meeting, was called out in the summary for
that meeting, and is there in the log file of course.  I think we can
expect the Council members to read the summaries of their own meetings,
no?

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)