[OSGeo-Discuss] Bylaws or procedures? [was: OSGeo Elections starting tomorrow]

Stephan Mei├čl stephan at meissl.name
Tue Jul 9 09:58:06 PDT 2013


Ahem, Peter are you sure about the mailing list you're posting to?

cu
Stephan


On 07/09/2013 06:55 PM, Peter Baumann wrote:
> 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.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Peter
>>
>> Ah?
>>   "need not be .... members"
>> and
>>   "must be ... members"
>> seem in conflict to the extent that the latter trumps the former and
>> has an opposite intent.
>>
>> ~adrian
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> by way of example (rather than launching first-order logic):
>         "need not be ...member of the corp (=OGC)"
>     intersect with
>         "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 OGC SWGs.
>     = adult WG charter members.
> 
>     qed
> 
> (*) logical term not minimized, Delaware actually is obsolete; likewise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 member.
> 
> cheers,
> Peter
> 
> PS: interesting use of normative "may" in the sense of "shall" in
> Section 3.3. Breaking ISO style. ;-)
> 




More information about the Discuss mailing list