incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Cooper" <>
Subject Re: [doc] are board resolutions ok for
Date Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:55:38 GMT
On 8/29/06, Leo Simons <> wrote:
> (moved from general@incubator since I imagine some people want to say
> something who don't read that)

? Um, I don't think you moved it anywhere. ;-)

On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:39:52AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > On 8/28/06, robert burrell donkin <> wrote:
> > >i have one or two board resolutions that it would be a good idea to
> > >bring to the attention of new podlings. since it's board policy, i
> > >think it'd be better to link to html documents containing the actual
> > >content rather a second hand account.
> > >
> > >can anyone think of any reason why board resolutions should be
> private...?
> >
> >
> >
> > (They should generally be treated as private until the minutes are
> > approved and posted there.)
> Huh? Why? What kind of data is in there that needs to be private?
> You mean wait 9 months for a TLP to start operating? Or wait implementing
> new
> legal policies for about 6 months are they're ratifieid?
> If, after a board meeting, there was some kind of (short or long)
> notification
> that a particular resolution was made/tabled/rejected, I think you could
> trust
> the board@ people to be reasonable and appropriate about disclosing that
> information, sometimes including the full text of the resolution.
> That's certainly how I've seen things happen over the last few years (even
> if
> the result of board meetings is not always reported informally, when it
> is, that
> usually prompts near-immediate action). For example, I think loads of TLPs
> list
> their "Creation resolution", and I think most of them did that before it
> was in
> the official minutes. Similarly, I'll bet we had the ASLv1.1 -> ALv2
> conversion
> well underway before it appeared in the minutes.

Up to about a year ago, board summaries were sent to committers@, and so
were public. Since then, they've been sent to members@ instead, making them
private. I don't know the reason for the change, but if they went back to
being public again, I would expect that pieces of them could be extracted
and used as they used to be.

Martin Cooper

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

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