Re: Donations

2006-06-15 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:51:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > I think that's the very case where we need the time to examine the > > private vetting process, since there may be no external communication > > before the announcement. > > Why wouldn't

Re: Donations

2006-06-15 Thread Manoj Srivastava
4. The Developers by way of General Resolution or election 4.1. Powers Together, the Developers may: -6. Together with the Project Leader and SPI, make decisions about - property held in trust for purposes re

Re: Donations

2006-06-15 Thread Anthony Towns
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:51:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > I think that's the very case where we need the time to examine the > private vetting process, since there may be no external communication > before the announcement. Why wouldn't we just have a public vetting process that takes two

Re: Donations

2006-06-15 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:27:08AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The DPL could 'unvet' the first one and then vet the second one. [...] > > Even if it was vetted and failed, it was still vetted, unless there's > time travel. I suggest that the vetting limit