community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Veto! Veto?
Date Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:28:44 GMT
D**n. Type-ahead....

If it weren't all that difficult and important to do the righteous thing,
we wouldn't have all the 'voting' aspects defined in our by-laws, and we
could run the ASF as one of its projects.

Pierre Smits

*ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade
http://www.orrtiz.com

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
wrote:

> If it weren't all that difficult and imported to do the righteous thing,
> we wouldn't have all the 'voting' aspects defined in our by-laws, and we
> could run the ASF as one of its projects.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
> Based Manufacturing, Professional
> Services and Retail & Trade
> http://www.orrtiz.com
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You can't coerce consensus regarding procedural issues by saying:   'do
>> it my way or I veto!'
>> Soon everybody will: veto. Veto. Veto! VETO. VETO!!
>>
>> Even vetoing a vote is not generating consensus.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Pierre Smits
>>
>> *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>*
>> Services & Solutions for Cloud-
>> Based Manufacturing, Professional
>> Services and Retail & Trade
>> http://www.orrtiz.com
>>
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message