Re: [Spi-private] Re: money handling

Lists: spi-general
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: [Spi-private] Re: money handling
Date: 2006-07-17 19:32:37
Message-ID: 20060717193237.GA26040@excelhustler.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On July 17, 2006, David Graham wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > Russ Nelson wrote:
> > > The current board may feel differently
> > I last proposed a motion to give the domain OSI in April 2005. I think
> > it was not seconded.
>
> It was addressed at the July 26th, 2005 meeting:
>
> http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/minutes/20050726.txt

I find it highly amusing that:

* The resolution in question did not pass because the vote on it was
tied.

* Bruce proposed that resolution.

* Bruce was not at this meeting and had not sent regrets.

So, if Bruce had shown up, the resolution would have passed.

-- John


From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>
To: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Spi-private] Re: money handling
Date: 2006-07-17 19:58:28
Message-ID: 20060717195828.GA15448@complete.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:32:37PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2006, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > > I last proposed a motion to give the domain OSI in April 2005. I think
> > > it was not seconded.
> >
> > It was addressed at the July 26th, 2005 meeting:

Here are some excerpts from the chat log for that meeting.

CosmicRay == me
cdlu == David Graham
Overfiend == Branden Robinson
Hydroxide == Jimmy Kaplowitz

So, Bruce didn't show up to vote on this, and also didn't bother to
resubmit it later as was encouraged.

-- John

20:13 <CosmicRay> [item 5, OSI resolution] Resolution 2005-07-26.bp.1
has been proposed.
20:31 <CosmicRay> Bruce isn't here to discuss his resolution but I think
we all know about it
20:58 <cdlu> I have no objections to it. I think we should bury this
hatchet.
21:12 <CosmicRay> cdlu: ... in Bruce's back, for not showing up?
21:27 <cdlu> CosmicRay, heh
23:20 <cdlu> 2 yes, 2 no, 2 abstain
23:20 <Hydroxide> ok, so it fails
23:22 <Overfiend> and KEEPS eating grapes!
23:23 <cdlu> this motion is defeated
23:27 * Overfiend laughs his ass off
23:31 * Joey sighs
23:32 <Hydroxide> I'm sure Bruce regrets not being here now :)
23:34 <IanJackson> That'll teach Bruce not to turn up.
23:40 <CosmicRay> cdlu: however, outcome may be different next month, so
maybe put it on the agenda for August again
23:54 <cdlu> CosmicRay, if it is resubmitted
24:00 <CosmicRay> cdlu: fair enough.
24:06 <cdlu> how about
24:15 <Overfiend> CosmicRay: if Bruce wants it, let him push for it and
bother to show up to speak in favor of it


From: Bruce Perens <bruce(at)perens(dot)com>
To: John Goerzen <jgoerzen(at)complete(dot)org>
Cc: spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Spi-private] Re: money handling
Date: 2006-07-17 21:38:12
Message-ID: 44BC0344.4060604@perens.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

John Goerzen wrote:
> So, if Bruce had shown up, the resolution would have passed.
I might still have abstained. It's a contentious issue.

There was about a two month gap between when this was proposed and when
it came up for a vote, with two meetings in between. I'm not clear why
that happened.

Thanks

Bruce