On 31 Oct 2017 18:54, "Andreas Mantke" <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi Simon, Cor, all, Am 31.10.2017 um 19:19 schrieb Simon Phipps: > > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Andreas Mantke <ma...@gmx.de > <mailto:ma...@gmx.de>> wrote: > > Hi Cor, all, > > Am 31.10.2017 um 17:12 schrieb Cor Nouws: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > Andreas Mantke wrote on 31-10-17 13:44: > > > >> that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very close personal > >> or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc. > > > > In business, one often makes the most deals with people you're friendly > > with ;) > > So let's try to all be friends and use the appropriate rules to prevent > > personal relations being the stronger argument than rational considerations. > > > > I'm not talking about not being friendly with each other (that's also a > rule written in the statutes), but about the fact that TDF is an > organization with rules and a lot of credit based also on good behavior > and transparent administration/organization. > > > Andreas, do you have a specific request or proposal? > yes, as I already mentioned and quoted here: "Thus the people acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of witness because of a or economic dependence to a member of the the other body." I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. Are you requesting disqualification of a candidate? And another recommendation that I think would be worth to follow: "I think it would be too bad to have a longer break before one get elected for another body." I don't think that a good organization/community need to put this into rules/statutes, but should have it in their DNA. But that's not an actionable proposal. What should we do? S.
