Re: Changes to the GNOME Foundation Bylaws from 2002

On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:16:46AM -0400, Chris Leonard wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 03:07:46AM +0200, Tobias Mueller wrote:
> >> Dear Foundation,
> >>
> >> I propose to change the current bylaws to the document attached.
> >
> >   Not saying what the change is, why you want it changed and
> > providing some kind of diff is very very surprizing. It exactly
> > sounds like you don't want that change to be discussed in any way.
> Diff attached to:
> as discussed on this list two weeks ago.  I see no indications that
> there has been any attempt to conceal this information, your implied
> accusation is ill-founded.

  Well, why not pass that information in the mail to announce then ?
A simple followup to that announce mail
  "BTW the changes we are making are documented at";

just solves the issue for me.

> >   So NACK on principle, I'm probably not a foundation member anymore
> > but I was part of the group who designed the bylaws and I don't
> > like your way to proceed frankly.
> Posting and announcing a diff on bugzilla, waiting about two weeks for
> comment (only a few on the ticket), then asking to move forward.  I am
> not sure I see the procedural issue, what specifically should have
> been done differently?  I'm new here, so I am curious.

  Well you cannot assume that foundation members watch all bugzilla,
right ? So if you send the fact that you are changing the bylaws
and that now replying constitute consent, at least give an indication
of what the changes are really about, and why. It is pure common sense
to me.


Daniel Veillard      | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit
daniel veillard com  | Rpmfind RPM search engine | virtualization library

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]