Re: Re-igniting the Membership Committee
Christopher Neugebauer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.australia |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABRwemmVxc9tHrHASdOoLLzMT6Ga1PuzHPhSfRUbzKFzNuRKZA@mail.gmail.com> |
On 10 February 2016 at 12:40, Tony Breeds <[email protected]> wrote: > > At this point my only comment is that subcommittee_policy_v2 [3] may be > slightly burdensome for this activity. I'd recommend v1 [4]. The decisions is > of course up to whomever ends up being on the sub-committee. > > I admit that my observation is tangential to collecting expressions of interest > but I've said it now .... > >> [0] http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2015-January/021988.html >> [1] http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2015-January/021995.html >> [2] http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/2015-January/022016.html >> [3] https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies/blob/master/subcommittee_policy_v2.md > > [4] https://github.com/linuxaustralia/constitution_and_policies/blob/master/subcommittee_policy_v1.md As the author of v2, I echo this sentiment. v2 is designed for recurring events with budgets, v1 remains suitable for committees that do not incur a budget. --Chris -- --Christopher Neugebauer Jabber: [email protected] -- IRC: chrisjrn on irc.freenode.net -- WWW: http://chrisjrn.com -- Twitter: @chrisjrn