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

[Taral]

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 http://lists.spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-bylaws/2004/000265.html:

> 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 taral.net>
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 : http://spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/20041016/66567588/attachment.pgp