Re: Technical committee chair rotation, draft resolution
Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Technical committee chair rotation, draft resolution"):
> Augh, we just agreed on a rotation, why a new one now? Downside to the
> above: it schedules newbies and oldbies together rather than interspersing
> them (Me then Andy; Bdale then Ian).
Your resolution doesn't deal with the problems that mine addresses.
In particular, it doesn't address the need for the implied
resignations and doesn't explain what the purported mechanism is. I
don't want our decisions to be challeged because some chairman's
casting vote is allegedly invalid.
Would you please propose an actual formal motion along the lines of
mine with what you think are the problems fixed ?
> In particular, the devmapper issue was brought to the ctte's attention
> on the 7th Dec and remains outstanding today, 11 weeks later. I brought
> this issue up on the ctte-private list a month ago today, and we've been
> pretty unanimous about at least the rotating chair aspect, but we still
> don't seem to have a consensus on what we want, let alone a decision yet.
I don't think there is a problem with the chairmanship rotation here.
Anyone can lead the discussion, propose motions, etc.
> > 4. The rota starts with Ian Jackson for February 2006.
>
> Didn't you just step down as chair?
At the moment we seem to be without a chair. My resolution would have
the effect of appointing me again for about a week.
> Your resolution doesn't address the possibility a tech ctte member is
> secretary or DPL as far as I can see, but presumably should.
That's just a mistake.
Ian.
Reply to: