| 1 |
Ferris McCormick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 17:29:56 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Richard Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
>> Did this meeting have sufficient notice to be considered an official |
| 6 |
>> meeting? Normally bylaws that govern matters like these also stipulate |
| 7 |
>> that meetings have a certain notice process to ensure that everybody |
| 8 |
>> knows about them. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It was announced at the last meeting, so it had one week notice. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Yes, but was everybody there? If not the only effective notice was in |
| 13 |
the summary. I'm not sure that everybody would have necessarily read that. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
In any case - if in doubt what value is there in holding another council |
| 16 |
election? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
It would seem that the purpose of this clause is to keep an inactive |
| 19 |
council from holding up gentoo as a whole. I don't think that is really |
| 20 |
the situation here. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
In any case, the council could just revise the GLEP to ammend this |
| 23 |
clause if necessary. Or whatever. It isn't like the council is a legal |
| 24 |
body in any sense - it is important that they have the respect of the |
| 25 |
development community, but I don't think that most devs are eager for |
| 26 |
new elections. The only body in gentoo that needs to strictly follow |
| 27 |
legal requirements would be the trustees. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-project@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives