Re: foundation application..

[Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>]

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 06:30:51PM +0000, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> > > If you have a concrete reason why it does help to continue to ignore
> > bylaws
> > > that are inconvenient for whatever is more convenient, then you are free
> > to
> > > make a case for that. California law probably would probably override
> > that
> > > idea, though.
> >
> > I tried to nicest way to let you see a different point of view, taking
> > into account the previous failure to have any discussion with you.
> >
> > It seems you're not open in understanding what I mean.
> >
> > > This is not a complicated process, it is fairly clear and transparent
> > > (especially when compared with the alternative). What is the problem with
> > > using It?
> >
> > Yeah, just focus on whatever the bylaws might or not might take. Did you
> > read my email? Did you make any effort to grasp what I'm trying to say?
> >
> > Your questions indicate you did not.
>
> The effort I made was to I ask what you were on about and that is still not
> very clear.

I'll try in a different way:
- there's apparently a different criteria being applied
- you seem to focus on what the bylaws state

This IMO skips an important part of trying to figure out why a different
criteria is being applied. For instance, you mention that according to
the bylaws it is not allowed to make a distinction. Further, it is not
allowed by some court. I don't think you're right in asserting that. I
might totally agree with you that having the distinction is wrong, but
regarding this point I don't see it the same way. Especially regarding
assumptions on what a judge would rule and so on. There's more to it
than just bylaws. IMO you have too much of a programmers view on this.
Could even be that standard practice trumps bylaws.

IMO it is better to first focus on *why* a different criteria is applied
and then figure out what to do, rather than ignoring the why and going
for *if* they can do that. IMO if there's a valid concern then it really
doesn't matter to spend so much time on if they're allowed or not.

> Those following, might have noticed that this was done in the opening part
> of the discussion and it seemed to be generally agreed that some interns do
> make non-trivial contributions. At least, nobody seems to have disagreed
> with that idea, anyway.

Most interns seem to vanish quite quickly after their internship is
over. Maybe not true at all anymore, there are a few exceptions, but
that has been a topic of discussion for various years.

I think more concretely specifying what membership committee expects is
helpful.

-- 
Regards,
Olav