Gerard Meijssen wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard
apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do
what
we aim to do? Thanks, GerardM
First, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to fix your problem of top posting.
My concern is that there are several things here at play.
There is what the committees (all of them, not just your pet one) are *tasked* to do.
There is what the committees themselves internally evolve to *aim* to do.
There is what the communities expect the committes to do.
There is what some disgruntled or otherwise, individuals expect the committees to do.
There are several official resolutions for each of the several committees founding etc. which are not even close to being phrased similarly, which does, whether you like it or not, create a source of confusion as to the role of the several committees.
None of this is clarified. And asking a very pointed question at me, who had no part in the resolutions that created any of the committees, serves very little purpose of clarifying any of it.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.