From e2c18b409d7b012d1f9f70a1b45ea6ffa6121f94 2012-03-02 16:57:23 From: Bradley M. Kuhn Date: 2012-03-02 16:57:23 Subject: [PATCH] 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. --- diff --git a/Conflicts/conflict-of-interest-policy.txt b/Conflicts/conflict-of-interest-policy.txt index 06ff8809c4839e6e3734cee0e9c63c465c4fd407..b5f9cb302001ff9c3eb6320d8695c727c564a8f1 100644 --- a/Conflicts/conflict-of-interest-policy.txt +++ b/Conflicts/conflict-of-interest-policy.txt @@ -298,7 +298,8 @@ or her family member), a PLC Person's employer and/or a fellow employee of PLC Person's employer wish to be considered a candidate to fulfill the funded software development contract, that PLC Person has a conflict of interest and must recuse herself or himself from the proposal drafting -process and abstain from any vote to approve that proposal. All other +process, except to disclose material facts and to respond to questions, +and must abstain from any vote to approve that proposal. All other procedures as outlined in <> shall still apply. The PLC must document the PLC Person's abstention from the proposal drafting process in the minutes of the next PLC meeting.