1. I oppose allowing the Secretary and Treasurer to be the same person. 2. Using additional criteria for tiebreaking could easily turn into a rigged election. 3. I believe there should be a court of some sort for handling violations. See the Bylaw Violation Court in http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/User:ScoopGracie/PMC/Proposed_bylaws for an example
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 13:15 Tino Didriksen <m...@tinodidriksen.com> wrote: > I'm proposing overhauling the Apertium Bylaws, and after some fixes and > refinements by the PMC, it's time to get everyone's input. > > PR with comments: https://github.com/apertium/organisation/pull/13 > > Current bylaws: http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Bylaws > > Proposed bylaws: > https://github.com/apertium/organisation/blob/overhaul/Bylaws.md > Proposed CLA: > https://github.com/apertium/organisation/blob/overhaul/CLA-optional.md > > Diff: https://github.com/apertium/organisation/pull/13/files > > The rationale is laid out in the top PR comment. There are 3 underlying > tenets: > - Codify our de facto behavior into de jure language. > - Ensure all forms of contributions can result in voting rights. > - Set up for an eventual Apertium legal entity. > > Please read the whole thing, and give feedback on the PR so that it is > kept in one place. > > -- Tino Didriksen > > _______________________________________________ > Apertium-stuff mailing list > Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff >
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
