[Foundation] Reset: Back to business | Criteria, Voting, Membership What does it mean?

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Wed Mar 13 13:19:39 CST 2002


On 3/12/02 1:39 PM, "Harold E. Gottschalk Jr." <heg at imissary.com> wrote:

> I would suggest not allowing the new members to join prior to any changes so
> that they can review the requirements and we can evaluate accordingly.
> 
> Here is the schedule I am proposing:
> 
> March 26,2002 Complete Draft
> April 2,2002  Final Document Release for Review by members
> April 9,2002 Vote on Acceptance of Document
> April 15,2002 Tally votes

Sorry for the lag.  Heg, I agree with what you're proposing but would also
agree that it should be something for a future membership drive not this
one.  There's enough chaos with the current situation...

Of course, I still stand with my original strawman for membership... We
should just throw out membership entirely.  I still haven't heard arguments
that would convince me we need it (other than to vote on who gets to be a
member or sit on the council).  I suppose though that in order to do this by
the rules, I should call for a member vote to decide that we don't have
members...  *blech*  There just seems something deeply wrong with that.  ;(

-iain


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com




More information about the Members mailing list