[OSGeo-Discuss] Bylaws or procedures? [was: OSGeo Elections starting tomorrow]
p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
Tue Jul 9 09:55:27 PDT 2013
On 07/09/2013 06:45 PM, Adrian Custer wrote:
> On 7/9/13 12:32 PM, Peter Baumann wrote:
>> Hi Adrian,
>> logically I cannot see the conflict - it's the intersection of both sets
>> described which gets effective in the end. I do agree, however, that
>> such a distributed modular ;-) spec is not easy to follow.
> "need not be .... members"
> "must be ... members"
> seem in conflict to the extent that the latter trumps the former and has an
> opposite intent.
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
by way of example (rather than launching first-order logic):
"need not be ...member of the corp (=OGC)"
"must be charter members"
adult natural persons, from inside/outside Delaware, from
inside/outside US (*), inside/outside OGC staff, charter members of one of the
= adult WG charter members.
(*) logical term not minimized, Delaware actually is obsolete; likewise OGC. But
lawyers like to be over-precise, as opposed to mathematicians.
For example, my co-chair Stephan Meissl would qualify, as he is WCS.SWG charter
PS: interesting use of normative "may" in the sense of "shall" in Section 3.3.
Breaking ISO style. ;-)
Dr. Peter Baumann
- Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
mail: p.baumann at jacobs-university.de
tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
- Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
www.rasdaman.com, mail: baumann at rasdaman.com
tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)
More information about the Discuss