On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Kaiting Chen kaitocr...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently there are some people who think the bylaws are broken. On
another readthrough it seems to me that the entire document could be
streamlined substantially, and definitions could be made more explicit
(especially
On 05/12/10 17:56, Kaiting Chen wrote:
Apparently there are some people who think the bylaws are broken. On another
readthrough it seems to me that the entire document could be streamlined
substantially, and definitions could be made more explicit (especially in
the matter of activity versus
Kaiting Chen kaitocr...@gmail.com writes:
Let's take falconindy's vote as an example; at the moment he has seventeen
votes for, one vote abstain, and zero votes against. There are thirty
Trusted Users in total.
Let us now assume that the remaining twelve Trusted Users are against
falconindy
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 03:35 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
Sorry for all the mail regarding the bylaws but let me take a quick moment
to go through one extremely broken case of the current procedure.
Let's take falconindy's vote as an example; at the moment he has seventeen
votes for, one vote
On Sunday 05 December 2010 23:14:14 Loui Chang wrote:
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 22:52 +, Peter Lewis wrote:
I'd support some kind of reworking of the quorum for TU votes, since as
Kaitling points out, missing a meeting due to weather, car problems, etc.
doesn't really apply (though a
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 23:23 +, Peter Lewis wrote:
On Sunday 05 December 2010 23:14:14 Loui Chang wrote:
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 22:52 +, Peter Lewis wrote:
I'd support some kind of reworking of the quorum for TU votes, since as
Kaitling points out, missing a meeting due to weather, car
Apparently there are some people who think the bylaws are broken. On another
readthrough it seems to me that the entire document could be streamlined
substantially, and definitions could be made more explicit (especially in
the matter of activity versus inactivity).
In addition it is my personal
