Resolution 2004-10-15.dbg.1: Non-meeting voting

Taral taral at
Sun Oct 17 02:44:48 UTC 2004

On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 06:58:46PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > As I said in my reply to Bruce, I'm worried that there might be some
> > legal doubt about the validity of these email resolutions.
> Is there any chance of getting a legal opinion on the validity of email
> meetings?  I wouldn't mind being proven wrong about them.

According to

> Actions may be taken without a meeting only if there is unanimous
> director consent. (This would appear to apply to e-mail voting.)

Taral <taral at>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the Spi-general mailing list