Hi Paolo, Paolo Vecchi wrote: > > Modifications are in sections 5.1 and 6.3. The changes were discussed > > in the legal group, and drafted by Mike. > > I had a look at my emails and the only reference I found about the changes > in the CoI by a member of the legal oversight team (me) said that the > changes in 6.3 were OK, but nothing about 5.1, and that as suggested by our > legal counsel we will use 1.3.2 as base for eventual future versions. > Can you point out where my initial statement was wrong?
> Could you point me to emails from other members of the legal > oversight team stating that 1.3.2 was ready and accepted for > adoption? > Right now, the draft is up for discussion. The changes where discussed last year, but then elections and the Xmas break delayed matters. The change, as stated, was drafted by Mike, as part of the ongoing improvements and careful balancing work we did end of last year. Your email from Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:47:58 (in that internal conversation) did not object to that modification. > Many called for unanimous consent for adoption of the CoI Policy so > I believe there should be also unanimous consent for changes to be > published and then adopted IMHO. > The initial, very controversial 1st version of the policy was anything but unanimously agreed on. So that is a very one-sided argument. How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state of the policy is still considered not ok for some. Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
