On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/13/15 8:44 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Moreover, if you accept that the word "culture" is effectively
> indistinguishable to outsiders from the term "status quo" (though the
> intent is obviously different), it's really quite revealing. All this
> "preserving the culture" talk comes out in an entirely different light.
I think this is a really important comment. I mean,
*really* important comment.
Bringing us back to the draft under discussion:
It sounds to me like our policies and tools around remote participation haven't evolved yet to the point where we can set down some serious NomCom eligibility criteria different from what's there now. By that I'm not in any way saying that these aren't important things to sort out, just that it's not possible at the moment to come to consensus on what exact changes we should make.
I suppose another way to look at that is: I have no idea what to write in terms of replacement text for the current Section 4.14 of BCP 10 that reflects a consensus here. Does anyone else want to take a stab at it?
I suppose another way to look at that is: I have no idea what to write in terms of replacement text for the current Section 4.14 of BCP 10 that reflects a consensus here. Does anyone else want to take a stab at it?
-MSK