Apologies, I had forgotten about the 1-year vs 2-year term issue. Was the
selection of 1-year terms done because we wanted one-year terms, or because
we wanted the charter to be finalized before we elected people to two-year
terms.
Anyway, if we are adopting 1-year terms, I think it adds to the appeal of
the replacement system, because this constituency is not cohesive enough to
be having meaningful elections more than once a year.
-- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/visit the convergence center! http://dcc.syr.edu/home.htm
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com> To: <ncc-charter@joy.songbird.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [ncc-charter] new words - where from?
> 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. > > Fixed. > > > 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? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > >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 > > > > > >-- > > >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > > >kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain > > > > > > -- > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 30 2000 - 15:20:40 PDT