Re: Bylwas Revision[2]: COMMITTEES

From: Will Lowe <harpo(at)UDel(dot)Edu>
To: Nils Lohner <lohner(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bylwas Revision[2]: COMMITTEES
Date: 1999-04-02 21:26:07
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.3.96.990402162055.25843A-100000@rivendell
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

> - if a committee is no longer necessary it should be disbanded. This can be
> done by the BOD or a vote of the membership.
What sort of vote? Quorum, two-thirds?

> Actually, should the committee have an official membership?
Yes. If a comittee is going to "be responsible for the day-to-day running
of SPI" (i.e., they're going to make day-to-day descisions on behalf of
the company), we may eventually end up in legal trouble if there's no one
who is officially responsible.

> - should non-contributing members be able to serve on committees?
> - what should the internal structure of the committee look like?
On the same tack, should committees be required to hold discussion on
publically-available lists? I understand that in some cases this simply
isn't an option, but in many cases it might be best if all committee
discussions were done in front of the world. Maybe a list for the
committee which only the committee can send to, but everybody can read?


| harpo(at)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)cis(dot)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)debian(dot)org |
| |
| PGP Public Key: |
| You think you're so smart, but I've seen you naked |
| and I'll prob'ly see you naked again ... |
| --The Barenaked Ladies, "Blame It On Me" |


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Darren Benham 1999-04-02 22:39:28 Re: Bylwas Revision[2]: COMMITTEES
Previous Message Havoc Pennington 1999-04-02 21:10:05 OpenCode/H2O