From: | Jimmy Kaplowitz <jimmy(at)debian(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Observations and suggestions |
Date: | 2002-12-13 00:25:21 |
Message-ID: | 20021213002521.GA12979@cato.pensezbien.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
Thread: | |
Lists: | spi-general |
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 06:30:00PM -0500, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> Second, a suggestion: Why don't we wait until after the next meeting
> (Tues, 2000 UTC) before trying to push anything through?
Hmm, as a couple people have pointed out, my suggestion above is rather
useless, since Wichert Akkerman (the Secretary) has 30 days to call a
vote, and so there will be one or possibly two board meetings before the
vote anyway. Also, it seems to in fact have been counterproductive, by
slowing down discussion and stopping people from seconding if they agree
with any of the proposals out there. Also, my comment that I was
considering withdrawing my proposal was misleading; I was merely
thinking that it was stifling discussion of other alternatives. Since
things have died down as far as discussion, I think it's better that we
move ahead somehow, while still letting the board fix things itself if
possible.
So, given that the board will have several chances to act before we can
in fact push anything through, and given that it's important to keep up
participation on the part of membership, I guess I should state that the
suggestion above is automatic and doesn't need to be acted upon by us.
Go ahead and second proposals that make sense to you. I should point
out that my proposal needs only 2 more seconds, and I think it's
significantly better than nothing although far from perfect (I know John
Goerzen disagrees), and it will help extricate the Corporation from its
current mess at least.
- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)debian(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Perens | 2002-12-13 04:15:03 | inactive board members? |
Previous Message | David Graham | 2002-12-12 23:54:54 | Re: Proposed SPI Bylaws Amendment |