[aur-general] TU identity (was Re: REMOVAL: xterminus)
Leslie P. Polzer
leslie.polzer at gmx.net
Thu Dec 20 11:44:21 EST 2007
> IF the by-laws can be interpreted to allow for a "hiatus" until the guy or
> gal that is unreachable is back in due form, that would be great. i.e. He
> or she can be allowed to remain a tu, but does not have their non-voting
> participation held against them or US, because we do not include them in
> the total number of expected voting tu s I think we have a good basis for
> a nice organization. AND the quorum numbers and such needed for the
> voting process will be usable again without banishing people that are
> having some sort of problems we can only guess at.
> 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
Something like that was the pragmatical solution I intended to go for
when I asked for a constructive approach.
But the more common opinion here seems to be to act according to the
current by-laws instead of attempting to reform them.
In the past I had the impression that pragmatism was more important
than the by-laws. But I suppose people have changed; after all some
are starting to compare TU-ship with a professional job.
The bottom line for me is currently: if I'm left alone to contribute
in the form I have done it over the past few months, I'd be very happy.
If not, I'll -- granted, reluctantly -- take my hat and give up
My personal blog: http://blog.viridian-project.de/
More information about the aur-general