[aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

2010-12-04 Thread Ionuț Bîru
hi, because of my lack of understanding of bylaws and failing to comply with them on my first proposal, i like to take the chance and redo the proposal, following letter by letter the removing procedure. Conform bylaws a motion procedure should be sent on aur-general with reasons. Here are

Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

2010-12-04 Thread Laurent Carlier
Le samedi 4 décembre 2010 23:58:33, Ionuț Bîru a écrit : > hi, > because of my lack of understanding of bylaws and failing to comply with > them on my first proposal, i like to take the chance and redo the > proposal, following letter by letter the removing procedure. > > Conform bylaws a motion p

Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

2010-12-04 Thread Ángel Velásquez
2010/12/4 Laurent Carlier : > Le samedi 4 décembre 2010 23:58:33, Ionuț Bîru a écrit : >> hi, >> because of my lack of understanding of bylaws and failing to comply with >> them on my first proposal, i like to take the chance and redo the >> proposal, following letter by letter the removing procedu

Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

2010-12-04 Thread Christopher Brannon
Ionuț Bîru writes: > 2) no commits in community since the addition. > > 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from > the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because > of that i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting. If he had eve

Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

2010-12-04 Thread Thomas Dziedzic
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Christopher Brannon wrote: > Ionuț Bîru writes: > >> 2) no commits in community since the addition. >> >> 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from >> the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because >> of that i'm s

Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

2010-12-05 Thread Kaiting Chen
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from the > "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because of that > i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting. > > Please discuss the motion(real

Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

2010-12-05 Thread Thorsten Töpper
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 03:01:51 -0500 Kaiting Chen wrote: > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Ionuț Bîru > wrote: > > > 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates > > from the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. > > Because of that i'm starting a 3 days disc

Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

2010-12-05 Thread Ranguvar
I have replied to the other mailing list thread on this issue. Again, I apologize completely for my behavior. Sincerely, Devin Cofer (ranguvar)