[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Active members vs All members

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2006-03-31 20:41:52 CEST

Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> Just relaying a concern brought up on IRC by sussman, should section
>> III.5.C.3 refer to 2/3 of the active members at the time of the
>> initial notice? It seems like requiring 2/3 of all members sets us up
>> for situations where it's possible we can't get quorum at all due to
>> having more than 1/3 of the total members inactive.
> I'd prefer active members, which if not defined elsewhere could be
> defined as members who've posted to the mailing list and/or made a
> commit within the last X (3?) months.
It is defined elsewhere, almost exactly as you propose:

    An Inactive Member shall immediately change his/her status to an
    Active Member upon the occurrence of any one or more of the
    following: (i) by casting a vote under the terms of these Bylaws; or
    (ii) by taking part in a discussion among Members on the
    Corporation's electronic mailing list. Upon the occurrence of either
    of the events listed in the preceding sentence, the Status of the
    previously Inactive Member shall become that of an Active Member,
    without any further action required by the Member or the Board, and
    the records of the Corporation shall be updated accordingly.

(that's III.5.B(1) ... reminds me of referring to the C++ standard ...)

-- Brane

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 20:42:09 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Organization mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.