Re[2]: [ga] List rules

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Harald,

Thursday, August 24, 2000, 3:27:28 AM, you wrote:

> At 00:22 24/08/2000 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>NC creates a problem. GA Chair is more suitable, but it really should be 
>>the operational list keeper.

> that's what we got into trouble about with "no democratic oversight" back 
> in the fall of '99.

I think that foolishness is over, though, and was more about otherwise
intelligent people finding any excuse to criticize.

> The operational list keeper is (and wants to be) a strictly technical role; 
> the troubles the list rules were designed to deal with are not of a 
> strictly technical nature.

I agree.  I support the GA Chair being in control for now....but that
may be because I trust Roberto and you.  Had the NC appointed someone
of less trustworthiness, I may have felt differently.

I think the GA should have some control over its Chair.  Some means
to get rid of a chair, etc.  There should be some recourse from the GA
that the chair is subject to that will keep the GA chair on the side
of the GA.  As it stands now the GA Chair exists at the whim of the
NC, and has to be pleasing to them.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html