Re: [aur-general] REMOVAL: xterminus

On Dec 20, 2007 10:38 AM, Callan Barrett wrote:

On Dec 21, 2007 1:10 AM, wrote:

...

IF the by-laws cannot or will not be interpreted this way, then I suggest we change them so that we can have inactive tu s without removing them altogether.

Exactly what you described is in the bylaws. A TU can be inactive for a maximum of 2 months WITH explanation, xterminus has disappeared without any such explanation and so should not be applied to that rule anyway so there's no reason for him to be marked "inactive indefinitely" (this status does not exist and should never exist by the way). I think changing the bylaws is a terrible way to deal with this as xterminus would be free (and I imagine welcomed) to reapply as a TU *if* he returns.

For the record, he _is_ incommunicado. I have tried to contact him numerous times over... the past 3 or 4 months maybe. I think Jeff actually had some luck, but he has attempted the same