On 3/30/06, kfogel <kfogel@collab.net> wrote:
> As Justin and others have suggested, we can instead trust a majority
> of the Board not to "go bad", and just use our current methods,
> following by a Board rubber-stamping. That is:
>
> 1. Person is proposed for full commit access in the usual way on the
> private full committers mailing list. Frank discussion follows.
> (We'll probably want a two- or three-day minimum discussion
> period, but that's an implementation detail.)
>
> 2. Person is approved, using today's consensus/approval method, on
> the private full committers list.
>
> 3. The Board sees this, and either a) meets & votes to admit the new
> member, or b) votes by "written consent". Written consent means
> they don't have to meet in realtime: CA law says if they all post
> digitally signed mails voting in favor, then the motion passes.
> One of the lawyers can give us full details on this, but that's
> the basic idea; this may be the most convenient way for the Board
> to take care of rubber-stamp motions, to avoid realtime meetings.
>
> 4. The person may now be offered Membership. Someone (perhaps from
> the Board, but not necessarily) mails the person, and the rest
> happens as it does today, except that the Secretary also updates
> the corporation's records.
Is the reason we want to board to rubber stamp new members rather than
just having the existing membership do it simply that it's more
complex to require the membership's voting to jump through the needed
hoops to make it all legal?
> I think it's important that all full committers are members and vice
> versa. Having this always be true simplifies things, and keeps the
> full committers group classless, which is important.
+1, I agree that's important.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: svn-org-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: svn-org-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 31 00:16:47 2006