gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <>
Subject Re: [PMC-VOTE] Bylaws
Date Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:45:49 GMT
Stefan Bodewig wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
>>I'm uncomfortable with the two places where the bylaws talk about
>>requiring unanimous votes.  Both talk about the extremely rare case
>>of removing a committer and/or PMC member.  Particularly in the case
>>of a rogue committer, swift action may be required.
> Would this become any better if we used any arbitrary majority number
> like 3/4 or 2/3?  I don't think so.


>>>From a board perspective, the chair of the PMC is held accountable
>>to such decisions.
> Exactly.
> Even if the bylaws don't spell this out, the chair would be able to
> act quickly on his/her own.  Do you think we need to clarify the
> "superhuman powers" of the chair?

Not necessarily.  What concerns me is the explicit spelling out of 
bylaws that appear to define a process that not only is never expected 
to be executed, but would be counter productive if attempted.

- Sam Ruby

P.S.  With or without any changes related to this comment, you have my 
+1 to proceed with these bylaws.  Bylaws can always be amended.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message