FIG 3.0#752
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
Locked for discussion as all comments should be on the mailing list topic |
| All FIG Secretaries are expected to remain impartial and professional when acting in an official capacity as Secretary and should also remain aware that even when not acting in an official capacity, their actions reflect back on the PHP FIG and the FIG must not be brought into disrepute. | ||
|
|
||
| In order to ensure impartiality, Secretaries may not concurrently serve as a Project Representative, Core Committee Member, or Editor of a PSR. They may, however, be a member of a Working Group. | ||
| In order to ensure impartiality, Secretaries may not concurrently serve as a Project Representative, Core Committee Member, or Editor of a PSR. They may, however, be a member of a Working Group. They must declare all conflicts of interest (for example being on the core team of member projects or involvement in PSR working groups) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably needs an "in that case" or something? They must declare such where, when, how?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By some official public medium but we're generally careful in the bylaws to not say where stuff must be 'posted' so we don't need a bylaw change for moving from a mailing list to forum for example.
| * Tracking member project activity | ||
| * Ensuring bylaws are being followed | ||
| * Clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text (If there is lack of consensus between FIG Secretaries then it must be put to a full vote); subject to a lack of objection from Core Committee members and Project Representatives** | ||
| * Clarifying any interpretation of bylaw text; subject to a lack of objection from Core Committee members and Project Representatives** |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
semicolon should be comma. But since that's a very long list of people who can object, this is basically not an authority in practice, no? Anyone objects, and then... what?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See the double **/footnote?
I removed what I feel are parts of the mission statement that are not adding to the core message. I think the statement reads better now without losing any of the intent.
Made the mission statement less wordy
Tweak mission statement again
Add a recommended discussion period for votes
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Bylaws in their split up form. You can view the new bylaws in a single document for ease of reading here.
Once merged (and the links exist) we will add cross links between the bylaws for easier navigation. For example with links to the relevant votes from the PSR workflow.
Please discuss these changes here