1/11/11, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> From: Norbert Thiebaud
> Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Preparing elections for the membership
> committee
> To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Date: Tuesday, 1 November, 2011, 15:16
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom
&g
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :)
> I have assumed that Thorsten has not stepped down from MC or something.
> Whatever he was stepping down from was in order for him to be able to do some
> work that he is being blocked from doing anyway right? So until the job
> needs
> On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 14:26 +0100, Florian Effenberger wrote:
>> - We would nominate Thorsten as election officer (who then would step
>> back as MC deputy),
+1
>> - and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,
+1
>> - and we don't want to freeze membership application
he was going to step
down from.
Sorry, i just got a bit muddled.
Regards from
Tom :)
--- On Tue, 1/11/11, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> From: Thorsten Behrens
> Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Preparing elections for the membership
> committee
> To: "Florian Effenberger
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> - and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,
+1
> - and we don't want to freeze membership applications.
+1 (going with the flow :))
> take the existing MC (needing a deputy for Thorsten,
> since he's in the BoD already) and have a gentlemen's
Em 01-11-2011 11:26, Florian Effenberger escreveu:
Hi,
to sum things up as I have an impression they are diesred:
- We would nominate Thorsten as election officer (who then would step
back as MC deputy),
+1
- and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,
+1
- and
Hi,
to sum things up as I have an impression they are diesred:
- We would nominate Thorsten as election officer (who then would step
back as MC deputy),
- and we would like to elect 5 members and 2 deputies in the new MC,
- and we don't want to freeze membership applications.
Please, all BoD
Hello,
Michael Meeks wrote on 2011-10-31 11:41:
a) it -may- allow us to setup the foundation more quickly, at
least we are not blocking on a fairly artificial timeline
I think if so, it just would delay two weeks, IMHO noncritical after
this amount of time.
b) i
On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 13:28 -0200, David Emmerich Jourdain wrote:
> > - In a nutshell, this means: We either can decide to nominate the current
> > MC as the first MC and have a "gentlemen's agreement" that they step back
> > as soon as the foundation is in place, leading to new elections about 45
Florian Effenberger wrote:
> >With the caveat that Thorsten must resign as MC-deputy, since one
> >cannot be BoD and MC member at once.
>
> good point, indeed. Thorsten, in case you get voted as election
> officer, would you step back from your MC deputy role?
>
Hi Florian, all,
yes indeed, as a
Hi,
Norbert Thiebaud wrote on 2011-10-30 17:09:
With the caveat that Thorsten must resign as MC-deputy, since one
cannot be BoD and MC member at once.
good point, indeed. Thorsten, in case you get voted as election officer,
would you step back from your MC deputy role?
Florian
--
Florian
Hi,
2011/10/30 André Schnabel :
> Hi,
>
> Am 30.10.2011 17:09, schrieb Norbert Thiebaud:
>>
>> Maybe we can do with the current MC as 'initially designated' for the
>> first 6 month of the foundation and organize a MC election then, since
>> it would be a good idea to have BoD election and MC elec
Hi,
Am 30.10.2011 17:09, schrieb Norbert Thiebaud:
Maybe we can do with the current MC as 'initially designated' for the
first 6 month of the foundation and organize a MC election then, since
it would be a good idea to have BoD election and MC election somewhat
separated to avoid 'oversight'/'me
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:28 AM, David Emmerich Jourdain
wrote:
>
> IMHO, I don't see why can we not adopt this option. The current MC proved
> that was (and is) impartial and deeply focused on meritocracy, essential
> factors for an MC.
>
> For me, the current MC proved that's fully deserving of
Hi,
David Emmerich Jourdain wrote on 2011-10-30 16:28:
IMHO, I don't see why can we not adopt this option. The current MC proved
that was (and is) impartial and deeply focused on meritocracy, essential
factors for an MC.
For me, the current MC proved that's fully deserving of this gentlemen's
a
Hi,
2011/10/30 Florian Effenberger
> Hello,
>
> André Schnabel wrote on 2011-10-26 21:48:
>
> as we have discussed previously, the paragraphs about the membership
>> committee in the current statutes draft differ in some points from what we
>> have in the bylaws. I hope, I can provide a transla
Hello,
André Schnabel wrote on 2011-10-26 21:48:
as we have discussed previously, the paragraphs about the membership
committee in the current statutes draft differ in some points from what
we have in the bylaws. I hope, I can provide a translation of the
relevant paragraphs early next week. Bu
Hello,
Thorsten Behrens wrote on 2011-10-27 09:45:
I'd still suggest to suspend MC work during that time - sure, people
can still apply for membership, and sure, MC members can send out
receival confirmations. But since it's the very MC that is then
standing for election, I think it is standard
Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> 'Freezing' the membership does not necessarily means stop processing
> applications, but just that the list of eligible member for the
> election is 'frozen' at that date.
> The list of member can still grow, but people that get membershp after
> the freeze date are not el
Hi,
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:29:34 -0500
> Von: Norbert Thiebaud
> 2011/10/26 André Schnabel :
> >
> > We had some discussion, if we should freeze again the membership
> process.
> > BoD should decide on that (I personally would not like to have again
> s
2011/10/26 André Schnabel :
>
> We had some discussion, if we should freeze again the membership process.
> BoD should decide on that (I personally would not like to have again some
> weeks where we do not accept new members, at the other hand it might be easy
> to challenge the vote, if we don't f
21 matches
Mail list logo
