| From: | Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Hasler <jhasler(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Cc: | board(at)spi-inc(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Resolution 2004-10-15.dbg.1: Non-meeting voting |
| Date: | 2004-10-17 02:44:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20041017024448.GA29614@yzma.clarkk.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | spi-general |
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 06:58:46PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > As I said in my reply to Bruce, I'm worried that there might be some
> > legal doubt about the validity of these email resolutions.
>
> Is there any chance of getting a legal opinion on the validity of email
> meetings? I wouldn't mind being proven wrong about them.
According to http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2004/000265.html:
> Actions may be taken without a meeting only if there is unanimous
> director consent. (This would appear to apply to e-mail voting.)
--
Taral <taral(at)taral(dot)net>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Perens | 2004-10-17 02:54:10 | Re: Efficient board meetings, revised |
| Previous Message | John Hasler | 2004-10-16 23:58:46 | Re: Resolution 2004-10-15.dbg.1: Non-meeting voting |