RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the election

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Ross,

Seeing how I am STILL the Chair of the Registrar Constituency would you mind
sending me a copy of your analysis, or for that fact sending it to the
entire list. I am not proposing throwing out the by-laws but Jim Archer has
raised the question of whether the by-laws were properly posted. If they
were not properly posted how could they be followed.

Mike

P.S. Would trying to deny the only person that expressed interest in running
for a position constitute a "witch hunt" under the criteria you described
last week?




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:38 PM
> Cc: 'Registrars List'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Re: Not so fast Rick!!!!! Hold off on the
> election
>
>
> > I understand the by-laws revision was intended to remove ambiguity and
> > provide a black and white definition. However, common sense
> > would seem to
> > argue that if someone wants to run for a position no one else
> > is interested
> > in, we should consider letting that person run.
>
>
> While allowing for practical exceptions at the edge is prudent (ie -
> there aren't yet any Registrar Representatives, therefore all
> nominations are invalid), we should try to follow through on what the
> bylaws actually say as closely as possible. I've sent Rick an analysis
> of what the appropriate courses of action are - I've no doubt that he'll
> make a reasonable decision. It would be a tragedy to throw out the
> bylaws as being inconvenient this early in the game - let's stick it out
> a little bit further and see what we learn about our constitution.
>
> Consider this set of events precedent #1. :)
>
>
>                        -rwr
>
>
>
>
> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
> idiot."
> - Steven Wright
>
> Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/
>