Re: [DISCUSS] [REVISED] Mentor neutrality policy

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 2:39 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > > The revised edition, as partly suggested by Sam (and echoed by Bertrand) > was: > > - Binding votes on incubation, graduation and/or retirement are only > valid when given by members of the IPMC who are independent

Re: [DISCUSS] [REVISED] Mentor neutrality policy

And still -1 on the revised proposal for the same reasons I stated before. Cos On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:39PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > First off: Can we *please* focus on the revised proposal and not get > into a loop about the original email? I'll change the topic if that helps. > > The revised

Re: [DISCUSS] [REVISED] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > First off: Can we *please* focus on the revised proposal and not get > into a loop about the original email? I'll change the topic if that helps. > > The revised edition, as partly suggested by Sam (and echoed by

Re: [DISCUSS] [REVISED] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM Daniel Gruno wrote: > First off: Can we *please* focus on the revised proposal and not get > into a loop about the original email? I'll change the topic if that helps. > > The revised edition, as partly suggested by Sam (and echoed by

Re: [DISCUSS] [REVISED] Mentor neutrality policy

First off: Can we *please* focus on the revised proposal and not get into a loop about the original email? I'll change the topic if that helps. The revised edition, as partly suggested by Sam (and echoed by Bertrand) was: - Binding votes on incubation, graduation and/or retirement are only valid

Re: [DISCUSS] [REVISED] Mentor neutrality policy

On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote: > First off: Can we *please* focus on the revised proposal and not get > into a loop about the original email? I'll change the topic if that helps. > > The revised edition, as partly suggested by Sam (and echoed by