> The committee has never been popular. People have > objected to its actions, its inactions, its existence, > and its members. Well, I like the members, more or less. > Currently, there seems to be a number of people > calling for new committee members. Okay, but is the issue personal or constitutional? That is, do they call because they dislike Raul and his friends, or because they wonder whether the Technical Committee's underlying constitutional basis could not be improved? One doubts that it were the former. So, suppose that it were the latter. In this case, what sort of constitutional amendment, if any, might the committee members advise the Project to adopt? For example, would the committee think it proper to limit tenure, or to entrust the selection of members to the Project as a whole? I suspect that better ideas than these will occur to you. Not yet a DD, I lack the right to ask questions in any event. However, if permitted, I would observe that if the issue is constitutional not personal, and if there is indeed a limited crisis of Project confidence, then changing the committee's membership seems unlikely to solve the underlying problem in the long term. You want not new members but new rules. New rules would lead to new members, perhaps, but gradually, in the orderly due course of time. If you had ideas along these lines, I suspect that I'd not be the only one interested to read them. -- Thaddeus H. Black 508 Nellie's Cave Road Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA +1 540 961 0920, firstname.lastname@example.org P.S.: Raul, your test worked.
Description: PGP signature