On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:09:35PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I miswrote `achieved' as `required'. So I withdraw my previous motion
> and propose the following instead, and call for a vote.
Since you've called for a vote, I vote "no" on this resolution as written.
I do agree that we should rende
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:07:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/22/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:07:22PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > If you believe that, then the whole thing is going to be far too much
> > > hassle. We can't be having a faffy voting election thi
On 2/22/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:07:22PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > If you believe that, then the whole thing is going to be far too much
> > hassle. We can't be having a faffy voting election thing every month
> > or two just to routinely elect the chairman.
>
> W
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:07:22PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Technical committee chair rotation, draft
> resolution"):
> > Voting no, for the record. In addition to the points raised regarding the
> > length of term, this resolution purports to be a "decision in adva
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Technical committee chair rotation, draft
resolution"):
> Voting no, for the record. In addition to the points raised regarding the
> length of term, this resolution purports to be a "decision in advance" about
> who will be elected chair at various future points, whic
Voting no, for the record. In addition to the points raised regarding the
length of term, this resolution purports to be a "decision in advance" about
who will be elected chair at various future points, which I don't believe is
constitutionally valid.
If a resolution were proposed that was a stat
6 matches
Mail list logo
