Hi Tom,
Tom Davies wrote on 2011-10-30 20:07:
Florian. It is good to have these issues dealt with. There is no need to apologise for
'spam' as it is all relevant and important stuff. If these issue weren't raised today
they would have to be raised another day and they are the type of thing
Hi,
Andre Schnabel wrote on 2011-10-31 16:52:
I'm fine with the model - jus wanted to say, that there still bneeds to
be avote.
ok, that's true - but that's what I meant with "nominate". :-) IMHO, the
statutes foresee no detailed voting rules like for the BoD or MC elections.
Seems I will
Hi,
Michael Meeks wrote on 2011-10-31 12:51:
Sorry for the delay, weekend got in the way, no doubt this is not the
canonical location for these, but ... hopefully someone can fix that for
me. Action items are prefixed with 'AA'.
thanks! Added this to
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org
Hi guys,
Sorry for the delay, weekend got in the way, no doubt this is not the
canonical location for these, but ... hopefully someone can fix that for
me. Action items are prefixed with 'AA'.
Thanks,
Michael.
Present:
Andre, Andreas, Bjoern, Thorsten,
Hello,
Michael Meeks wrote on 2011-10-31 11:41:
a) it -may- allow us to setup the foundation more quickly, at
least we are not blocking on a fairly artificial timeline
I think if so, it just would delay two weeks, IMHO noncritical after
this amount of time.
b) i
On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 13:28 -0200, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
> > - In a nutshell, this means: We either can decide to nominate the current
> > MC as the first MC and have a "gentlemen's agreement" that they step back
> > as soon as the foundation is in place, leading to new elections about 45
On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 10:34 +0100, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Not really - it's 3 weeks from candidate introduction to end of
> election, compared to 2 weeks for the usual MC meeting cadence.
Except we just had another election that also froze the membership ;-)
did we re-open that in betw
On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 16:27 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> As Thorsten is elected BoD member, he is not running for an MC seat, and
> thus should have no conflict of interest in acting as election officer.
+1.
--
michael.me...@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
--
Hi all,
> Not really - it's 3 weeks from candidate introduction to end of
> election, compared to 2 weeks for the usual MC meeting cadence.
>
> I agree that there are no strong, hard arguments for or against
> either procedure, I just have the impression it appears much cleaner
> to suspend MC wor
Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On the other hand, freezing completely the membership process during
> election is not very nice for new potential members, as it would mean
> extending by 1 to 2 month the 'waiting period' of the one that picked
> a bad date to start contributing :-)
>
Not really - it's
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> >With the caveat that Thorsten must resign as MC-deputy, since one
> >cannot be BoD and MC member at once.
>
> good point, indeed. Thorsten, in case you get voted as election
> officer, would you step back from your MC deputy role?
>
Hi Florian, all,
yes indeed, as a
11 matches
Mail list logo
