Summary of comments

John Goerzen jgoerzen at
Mon Feb 17 20:24:47 UTC 2003

On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 12:33:25PM -0600, Taral wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 09:46:41AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > If you're talking about the Identification of Problems phase, are you
> > suggesting we abandon the proposal at
> >  (It
> > actually looks fairly similar to what you're proposing.)
> Yes. I think most of the things on the list bear addressing at some
> point, so an incremental processing (identify, solve, identify, solve,
> etc.) seems to be a preferable solution. New problems may show
> themselves as we solve others.

That makes sense.  I just want to make sure that we keep the conversations
on-topic, orderly, and comprehensive -- making sure we've looked at all the
problems brought to our attention.

It sounds like you're suggesting that once we have our list of problems, we
can just look at each one and either reject it as not applicable wrt bylaws
amendments, or implement an amendment for it?

Sounds reasonable to me.  Less work, still orderly.  Comments anyone?

-- John

More information about the Spi-bylaws mailing list