Commit graph

24 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Brett Smith
d477e1b02e Conflicts: Remove duplicate Date field from Exhibit B.
The last commit actually applied to Exhibit A,
which is still good but not the change I intended to make.
2019-03-12 10:22:28 -04:00
Brett Smith
7ba6af49a4 Conflicts: Minor formatting fixes in Exhibit B.
* Remove duplicate date field.
* Write a prompt line for next date field.
2019-03-12 10:21:31 -04:00
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
c214f86e13 conflict of interest policy: wrap very long line
Wrap another long line, introduced in 9ed5723 ("Conflicts: Convert to
Markdown.", 2018-05-04). There's no functional changes here, just
whitespace changes.
2018-09-27 10:44:05 -04:00
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
62471a94d3 conflict of interest policy: wrap a very long line
This line was introduced in b36d382 ("- edited "competitive bids[...",
2012-03-05). There's no functional changes here, just whitespace
changes.
2018-09-27 10:44:05 -04:00
Brett Smith
9ed5723d4f Conflicts: Convert to Markdown. 2018-05-04 15:52:21 -04:00
Martin Michlmayr
fc37e3923f Remove spurious LaTeX command 2014-06-30 22:19:49 -04:00
Tony Sebro
6a6f6503e6 deleted document date, now that changes are being tracked via Git. 2014-06-30 22:10:44 -04:00
Tony Sebro
b36d3820b4 - edited "competitive bids" language to broaden scope from software developers to all "technical service contractors."
- made a few grammatical and wording changes to the section re: Community Members' (lack of) influence over a Project's technical direction
2012-03-05 17:52:40 +00:00
f907711217 s/some/substantial/g because the real concern is a serious substantial
interest rather than a de minimus.
2012-03-02 17:45:07 +00:00
15c79ec101 Fixed m-dash typo. 2012-03-02 17:28:23 +00:00
1255846448 Be clear about what state and federal laws we mean. 2012-03-02 17:25:45 +00:00
c27b5ada30 cjl asked:
I believe it is important to be very specific about reimbursement for
      travel as this is probably one of the moret common forms of financial
      transactions in many projects.  It would be unfortunate if PLC members
      were made ineligible (or unduly burdened) in requesting travel funding
      on an equal footing with other project members.

We've explicitly stated now that legitimate reimbursements are not
compensation.
2012-03-02 17:16:06 +00:00
e7865e7fce Typo fix. 2012-03-02 17:11:59 +00:00
037424ead4 cjl raised this issue:
As a practical matter, this one is difficult may be difficult for
      Sugar Labs to achieve (particularly, "permitted to hear") as our PLC
      discussions are held in an open IRC forum and openness is a
      philosophical position within our project.  Can we narrow this
      restriction for PLC members to "participate" while allowing
      "hearing" on an equal footing with all project members?

This change reworks that section to allow for after-the-fact reading of
logs and/or minutes by the conflicted Person, but does not allow them to
attend the meeting except to disclose facts, etc.
2012-03-02 17:11:37 +00:00
a513f015d2 cjl suggests that:
While "available bandwidth" is common enough jargon in our community,
      perhaps this should be changed to "interest and availability".
We accepted the change since "bandwidth" is indeed jargon.
2012-03-02 17:01:06 +00:00
e2c18b409d cjl from the Sugar Labs committee raised the following concern:
In theory, engagement in the proposal drafting process might allow a
      conflicted person to "tip the scales", thereby justifying their
      exclusion.  However; in practice, it may be that the conflicted
      person is the only PLC member with the requisite technical expertise
      or situational awareness to draft a suitably detailed proposal.  Is
      it possible to acknowledge that the rest of the PLC should generally
      be capable of taking advantage of the conflicted persons special
      knowledge and contributions to the drafting without allowing the
      creation of "an uneven playing field".

This change allows the conflicted PLC Person to "disclose material facts
and to respond to questions" to the drafting process, but does not allow
them to do the drafting themselves.
2012-03-02 16:57:23 +00:00
d92b393c39 After discussion with Denver and Tony, we narrowed these sections to
"for-profit", since we decided that non-profit "competition" wasn't an
issue of direct concern in these scenarios.
2012-03-02 16:44:21 +00:00
1ca3ced3fd Converted format from LaTeX to asciidoc 2012-03-01 23:02:21 +00:00
Tony Sebro
9fc01214d1 2012-03-01 21:13:52 +00:00
997bc7452f typo fixes. 2012-02-22 20:31:56 +00:00
b494ed6bed A few formatting fixes. 2012-02-09 16:06:47 +00:00
Tony Sebro
d63a6ebc3b 2012-02-07 22:13:34 +00:00
Tony Sebro
391da1e2ce 2012-02-07 22:12:06 +00:00
Tony Sebro
0f83fbf7f2 2012-01-20 14:41:10 +00:00