On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 02:00:09PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adam Peake" <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
>
> > Replacement stands with the No.1 in the election then hovers about in the
> > wings waiting for a retirement. A bit like the alternate idea, except the
> > replacement doesn't actually do anything after they are "elected". On the
> > other hand, the 2 Adcom members, 4th and 5th in the election, work for the
> > constituency and keep themselves involved. And the replacement just sits
> > around waiting for their No.1 to resign.
>
> No, actually it increases the likelihood of someone getting involved. The
> person who is designated a replacement receives some official recognition as
> a kind of officer in the constituency.
You mean, just like an adcom member? Maybe we should just get rid of
adcom members entirely, and have NC reps and their assistants do it
all?
> If this person is going to do work
> for the constituency, designating them as a replacement will help. It will
> motivate them to follow the NC activities and Adcom activities.
This is backward. You want people who are motivated as officers -- you
don't put people in office to motivate them.
> > This proposal will do nothing to help with the work of the constituency,
> > might even discourage Adcom members from taking on more work.
>
> This makes utterly no sense.
> People who are going to do work for the
> constituency are going to work regardless of whether there is replacement
> candidate waiting in the wings. People who will not work will not be
> affected either way.
:-)
You just invalidated your own argument about motivation. On the other
hand, Adam's point in fact makes a lot of sense. You (and Vany) are
proposing "alternates" or "assistants" who are to take on some of the
work that we elected the adcom for.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 11:19:04 PDT