On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:44:04PM +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
> Kent, thank you.
> 1. I would have put the new text on political party membership as the last
> paragraph in Section II, but a quibble.
My personal preference is that we should not include this text in this
iteration, but in the interests of harmony... Anyway, I moved it to
the place you suggested.
> (I have an additional comment on
> non-voting I'll send separately.)
> 2. Agree about returning to 1 year term. Current AdCom members were
> elected for 1 year.
Yes, and the most recent charter had one year terms explicitly. We
have to bear in mind that Raul's last displayed charter got a lot of
visibility in the constituency, and the there wasn't any controversy
about the 1 year term that I recall.
> 3. G. Replacement. Still refers to a "two-year term" Should be changed to
> 1 year.
> 4. Impeachment. Didn't YJ mention something about this in her notes on
> DNSO review? Is this something the Names Council and constituencies should
> be looking at for some consistency?
> Anyway, for now if we don't know what it means, suggest to the constituency
> that words about impeachment be removed until a process is agreed - work in
> progress item?
> >On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 07:28:41PM +0200, Dany Vandromme wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Adam Peake wrote:
> >>> Shouldn't we be using the February 2000 version of the charter as the basis
> >>> for amendments?
> >> -
> >> After I made changes to the initial draft, I would prefer you point out
> >> the changes suggested by Raul if they are significant. I would not redo
> >> the changes again, otherwise I will not get it done before next week.
> >> Thanks
> >> Dany
> >Dany, there are *many* significant differences, starting with the
> >title, and in my opinion we really cannot use the old charter as a
> >base. In the interests of time, I have edited your changes into
> >Raul's last posted version and posted it on the web site.
> >I did make a couple of small changes, and interspersed a couple of notes
> >about things that need to be fixed, IMHO. In particular, I marked the
> >new text about political parties, since that is a fairly substantial
> >addition, and I thought it should be highlighted. I also introduced the
> >abbreviation "AdCom", and used it in several places. I reworded the
> >segue following the "running mates" proposal so that it just flows
> >naturally into the following section, and marked it as an addition
> >rather than as an alternate, since the "AdCom selects" proposal is
> >not optional -- it is present in all versions.
> >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> >email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 29 2000 - 22:46:27 PDT