On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:38:20AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments,
> again"):
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:19:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > The way I imagine this working is that we nomi
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments,
again"):
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:19:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The way I imagine this working is that we nominate one TC member (me,
> > I guess) to do the work of soliciting seco
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:19:36AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments,
> again"):
> >Therefore, to achieve roughly the same effect, the TC makes the
> >following promise. If any TC member gives notice that the TC
> >accept
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 04:07:04AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> (a) the TC will use its own power under A.1(1) to arrange that
> the amendment appears on the GR ballot as an option;
>
> (b) the TC will use its power under A.1(1) to propose and
> its power under A.1(2)
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments,
again"):
> How would we go about doing those things? I assume that, given the
> constitutional requirement, the TC does actually need to vote on
> amendments, so we would implement this by possi
Ian Jackson writes ("Technical Committee proposed GRs, and amendments, again"):
>Therefore, to achieve roughly the same effect, the TC makes the
>following promise. If any TC member gives notice that the TC
>accepts an amendment, then at least one of the following will
>happen:
Th
Ian Jackson writes:
> What would you think of TC resolutions to start GRs along the
> following lines ?
[...]
> 2. It is not practical for the TC to vote to accept/reject individual
>amendments to the GR proposal. The TC would wish to delegate its
>power to accept amendments, to avoid
7 matches
Mail list logo
