Re: vote time again: stepping down as chair
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Regrettably, there hasn't been any discussion since the end of the
> last vote about how to manage these rotations properly without
> adding undue overhead, so I guess that may be something we need to
> discuss again this round. For my part, I definitely think that a
> 1-month rotation would be too short, regardless of whether any
> voting was required, just because anything that happens in the TC
> takes long enough that we would be doing a whole lot of shuffling of
> current business between chairs.
Since the only major power that the Chair has is standing in for the
project leader under 6.1.8 and 7.1(2); and minorly, voting even when
they're a developer involved in a dispute, perhaps it would be better
to maintain a chair that is relatively static, and assign members of
the committee to steward issues that are brought to the committee in
order instead?
That way, each issue would have a person who was responsible to deal
with the issue, regardless of who the actual chair was, and the chair
would remain a position existing for constitutional compliance.
[The chair rotation could continue on unabaited even if this was
adopted, of course.]
Don Armstrong
--
There is no such thing as "social gambling." Either you are there to
cut the other bloke's heart out and eat it--or you're a sucker. If you
don't like this choice--don't gamble.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: