* tbm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 16:59]:
> > http://members.spi-inc.org/ doesn't let me sign-in with a message
> > that "The problem is session management failed or timed out."
> > That may or may not be related to the expired SSL certificate.
> >
> > Should I still report this directly, or c
On Friday 18 March 2005 5:21 am, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> That may be because he's made the mistakes and learned from them.
> If he [can convince us he] won't repeat them, so much the better.
I'm all for giving people space to learn but isn't the cost a bit high? Will
we allow Jimmy the same err
Bill Allombert wrote:
You misunderstood my second point: you already knew that Branden was
running when drafting your plateform, so you could have incorporated this
in your plateform instead of the rebuttal.
Well, no, that's not true: I knew Branden was considering running, but
he didn't actually
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:10:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> >So, Anthony, I don't know if you can change your rebuttal, but if you can
> >I would suggest you to remove that part.
>
> >Also, I suggest rebuttals to be restricted to the plateforms of the other
> >candida
Hi, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I also like how Branden's response boils down to "I'm the most qualified to
> fix this problem in the future because I've caused the most problems in the
> past."*
>
That may be because he's made the mistakes and learned from them.
If he [can convince us he] won't re
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 6:20 pm, MJ Ray wrote: [...]
> > Isn't that why we have the reference to section 9 in the DPL's
> > description, which defines the debian/SPI relationship and SPI
> > only "considers" DPL requests. [...]
> So, does it take a GR t
Previously Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Neither weasel nor I remember receiving such an email (or can find
> anything in our archives).
I would suggest checking your mailbox on chic.
Wichert.
--
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/
* Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 21:41]:
> I asked the SPI nm folks (which includes you Martin) to verify the
> members.spi-inc.org setup after moving it to chic. Apparently nobody
> has done so.
Neither weasel nor I remember receiving such an email (or can find
anything in our a
On Thursday 17 March 2005 6:20 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> I have been reminded that an SPI question was asked around line 205
> of http://people.debian.org/~mjr/debian_dpl_debate.html
I finally got around to reading it. Personally I think Jonathan is nuts, with
chocolate and ice cream! I love him though
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 2:07 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Yes, it would be good to have more replies on
> > http://debian.edv-bus.at/vote-2005/spi-management.html
> Agreed.
I have been reminded that an SPI question was asked around line 205
of http://people.d
On Thursday 17 March 2005 2:07 pm, MJ Ray wrote:
> Quite so. The president is not the officer charged with handling monies,
> but a board-level overseer. http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/spi-bylaws
Agreed. It all comes down to team attitude. The problem (and this can be
typical) is that obsessing
Previously Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> OK, I can see this too. Let's CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's probably
> related to the recent move to another machine.
I asked the SPI nm folks (which includes you Martin) to verify the
members.spi-inc.org setup after moving it to chic. Apparently nobody
has done
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want to revisit the entire discussion here but if you read the
> by-laws
> you will see that they specifically empower the President to "see that all
> books, reports and certificates as required by law are properly kept or
> filed". The only
On Thursday 17 March 2005 6:30 am, MJ Ray wrote:
> That's a nature of both summary and diplomacy. He didn't mention
> that you were organisationally asleep and reacted when you woke up
> by trying to exceed your powers. I suspect John wants to avoid any
> unnecessary offence to current, future or p
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 16:44]:
> > Why does it not work?
> http://members.spi-inc.org/ doesn't let me sign-in with a message
> that "The problem is session management failed or timed out."
> That may or may not be related to the expired SSL certificate.
>
> Should I still report
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 12:20]:
> > I don't have authorization for spi-private archives right now
> > (which, as an SPI contributing member, I think sucks).
> Why does it not work?
http://members.spi-inc.org/ doesn't let me sign-in wit
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 12:20]:
> I don't have authorization for spi-private archives right now
> (which, as an SPI contributing member, I think sucks).
Why does it not work?
Did you try going to
http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-private, putting your
email address in
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This summary leaves out some key elements.
That's a nature of both summary and diplomacy. He didn't mention
that you were organisationally asleep and reacted when you woke up
by trying to exceed your powers. I suspect John wants to avoid any
unnecessary
Anthony Towns wrote:
> [...] It took 'til April for people
> not paying attention to SPI to notice the change [3],
I don't have authorization for spi-private archives right now
(which, as an SPI contributing member, I think sucks). Who do
you mean by "people not paying attention to SPI"?
> [...
Bill Allombert wrote:
I concurr.
I find AJ rebuttal on that specific point outrageous:
So, Anthony, I don't know if you can change your rebuttal, but if you can
I would suggest you to remove that part.
Also, I suggest rebuttals to be restricted to the plateforms of the other
candidates, not the
MJ Ray wrote:
It looks from
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2004-01-06.jrk.1.br.1
and http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/20040907 that there
was 8 months between Branden quitting as treasurer and being
named as deputy. It even looks like SPI acting on the suggestion
by
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 5:49 pm, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 1) Branden is the only candidate that has contributed to SPI management.
>
> 2) Branden is by far the SPI contributor that has done the most for SPI
> since 2001.
>
> 3) Branden become the treasurer at a point when SPI situation was awful.
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 10:13 am, John Goerzen wrote:
> Speaking solely for myself here: your analysis is correct. Branden was
> not forced out, but resigned, and volunteered to help Jimmy later.
>
> You may also find these minutes of interest:
>
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/20040
I concurr.
I find AJ rebuttal on that specific point outrageous:
I am a SPI contributing member since 2001. By my reckon:
1) Branden is the only candidate that has contributed to SPI management.
2) Branden is by far the SPI contributor that has done the most for SPI
since 2001.
3) Branden bec
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:25:17PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns's rebuttal to Branden Robinson looks partly
> false. It mentions "Branden's demotion to deputy-treasurer
> under Jimmy Kaplowitz" about SPI.
>
> It looks from
> http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2004-01-0
Anthony Towns's rebuttal to Branden Robinson looks partly
false. It mentions "Branden's demotion to deputy-treasurer
under Jimmy Kaplowitz" about SPI.
It looks from
http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/resolutions/resolution-2004-01-06.jrk.1.br.1
and http://www.spi-inc.org/corporate/minutes/20040907 t
26 matches
Mail list logo
