Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Bylaws
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:55:29
Message-Id: 1212447317.2755.1@spike
In Reply to: [gentoo-nfp] Bylaws by Ferris McCormick
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.05.30 19:09, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Apologies for flaking out Sunday. I was not well at all; better now. >
> So > let's make that a single topic meeting and approve what we have and > move on. Only thing we have to make sure of is that amending the > bylaws is relatively easy.
> > Regards, > Ferris > - -- > Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> > Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkhAQvAACgkQQa6M3+I///cg5QCgqoyEthYL1CBwtuhAUMFHTk5K > KvwAn2rXIDjynDFllBYXkgx9RhgHyfkC > =ECg9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
Ferris, I'm not clear on the intent of this. 1. You want us to go back to where we started and approve what we inherited ? 2. You want us to use Articles 1-3 as we reviewed them and 4 onwards from the draft ? I'm not keen on either. 1 means we throw away what we have done on the bylaws. 2 means doing further work so we make sure the hybrid is self consistent. As we have to review the bylaws anyway, what about leaving contentious bits until the end, then maybe only carrying out editorial changes to make them consistent with with everything else. By definition, its non-controversial and allows us to build rapidly on what we have already done. - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkhEelQACgkQTE4/y7nJvavfwQCfYdfw3W+Q15hqco5jEDePr6sn ruYAoL9d5EoyCrfTRaPLfvJ/jIkPC2PH =Ynf6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-nfp@l.g.o mailing list