Hi, Jon -
I'm assuming you're referring to the Team Member designation for users
affiliated with projects on Snowdrift.coop. If you're referring to
something else, then this response may not be valid for your question, and
my apologies in advance for the misunderstanding.
My first thought on you
On 10/17/2015 09:54 PM, Jason Harrer wrote:
> Hi, Jon -
>
> I'm assuming you're referring to the Team Member designation for users
> affiliated with projects on Snowdrift.coop. If you're referring to
> something else, then this response may not be valid for your question,
> and my apologies in
Jason,
Aaron clarified it well. To clarify further, my thoughts for now are
specifically about the specific "snowdrift" class; the team leaders of the
snowdrift project. I think the "project" class could be defined quite a bit
more loosely and left up to the discernment of the individual projects.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:09:22PM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> The question is: How do we determine who gets to count enough as a team
> member of Snowdrift and thus get to vote in that member class in the
> co-op? The same question also must be answered for counting as a member
> of other projec
Brian,
Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is definitely
off the table.
Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't considered
that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to give full time
staff, payed or not, special representation on the bo
Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Jonathan Roberts <
robertsthebr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is definitely
> off the table.
>
> Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I ha
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Roberts
wrote:
Brian,
Your first comment makes a lot of sense. I think that option is
definitely off the table.
Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense to
g
On 10/19/2015 11:05 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?
>
From here on, try to remember reply in context at the *bottom* of an
email / below the thing in context. It's much easier to follow that way.
Anyway, I think that it's okay to say that employees don't
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
>
> On 10/19/2015 11:05 AM, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> > Aaron, what are your thoughts about that?
> >
>
> From here on, try to remember reply in context at the *bottom* of an
> email / below the thing in context. It's much easier to follow tha
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04:33AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>
>Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
>considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense
>to give full time staff, payed or not, special representation on
>the board. In ot
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Bryan Richter wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:04:33AM -0700, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> >
> >Paying a member fee is an interesting thought. I guess I hadn't
> >considered that. I have been mostly thinking that it makes sense
> >to give full time sta
While we're going meta...
One thing that stands out to me is that this whole discussion is
predicated upon the assumption that these 3 classes must exist. I
haven't spent enough time reading the bylaws, etc, to determine if this
assumption is valid; I just wanted to make it explicit.
I will
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Stephen Michel
wrote:
> While we're going meta...
>
> One thing that stands out to me is that this whole discussion is
> predicated upon the assumption that these 3 classes must exist. I haven't
> spent enough time reading the bylaws, etc, to determine if this ass
13 matches
Mail list logo
