Re: Technical committee chair rotation, draft resolution
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Technical committee chair rotation, draft resolution"):
> Voting no, for the record. In addition to the points raised regarding the
> length of term, this resolution purports to be a "decision in advance" about
> who will be elected chair at various future points, which I don't believe is
> constitutionally valid.
Oh, and another point. When I agreed with Anthony's proposal, I
wrote:
This is a resolution to appoint the chair at various times, and I vote
yes to this.
But it turns out that Steve thinks that such a resolution cannot
possibly exist. So we have a disagreement about what it meant. Which
leaves us where ??
A similar situation exists with the `Advisory opinions from the chair'
which might mean that the committee members promise not to disagree
later (which I would strongly disagree with) or might mean almost
nothing (in which case why have a resolution about it). Some of us
seem to think it means one thing and some of us another.
> If a resolution were proposed that was a statement of intent only, and if we
> can come to some agreement again about the term length, I would vote yes.
I would not be happy with a statement of intent only. In particular,
I'm not happy with a situation where the chair might fail to resign
and we wouldn't be able to remove them. (Although with the Leader's
approval we could remove them from the committee entirely, I suppose.)
Ian.
Reply to: