I'm not clear on the intent of this.
1. You want us to go back to where we started and approve what we
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
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.
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
email@example.com mailing list