On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 02:30:04PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 10:25:00PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > The Chairman of the Technical Committee, who is not a person known for > > his active role in the project. He too has failed to discharge his > > duties in a timely fashion. > > Excuse me? I thought the chairman of the tech ctte was (still?) Ian Jackson. If it was/is you, then I retract the first bit of slander but not the second, because the Tech Ctte. Chairman needed to act. > It's true that the technical committee chairman has the option of standing > in for the project secretary, when the secretary is unavailable. Yes, as he should have done here. > However, that doesn't mean he's obligated to step in and act when a > proposal is dying for lack of interest. Bzzt. Both John's GR and Anthony's amendment had seen CFV's posted. This hardly constitutes "lack of interest". Under the procedure described in section A of the Constitution, the next step was up to the Project Secretary, and he failed to act. I can see where this is going. Darren Benham is arguing (or so I heard via IRC) that personal emails sent to him over the month-long dormancy period after the CFV's counts as activity under A.5, and you are going to argue that it doesn't, excusing yourself for your inactivity during Darren's own. So, where will the buck stop? -- G. Branden Robinson | "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk around branden@deadbeast.net | on the Moon?" http://deadbeast.net/~branden/ | "Because they were wearing heavy boots."
Attachment:
pgpnYA12lXyJA.pgp
Description: PGP signature