[Foundation-l] Policy modification (was possible reconsideration)

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at 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.