[governance] Terms was coordinating the IGC

[Avri Doria]

On 21 apr 2006, at 19.42, William Drake wrote:

> 3.  Terms.  It's less obvious to me why we would need to do a one  
> year thing
> with you and then two year positions for others etc.

i suggested because we are at a stand still point and need something  
to get the process moving again.  if the caucus is able to figure out  
a way to pick two chairs then fine.  but several months after the  
departure of the previous coordinators, we still don't have any.

> Why not just elect two
> people now, for one or two years, whichever?

we have no way to do an election that i can think of.  and hence no  
way to give a coordinator legitimacy.  as far as i can tell the only  
way for a coordinator to have legitimacy at this point is to have  
full consensus.  and that is why my potential agreement to take on  
the role is based on getting full consensus.  if i can't then i see  
no way to have legitimacy in the role.

> I don't see the problem with
> non-staggered terms, personally.

i do.  we end up in the situation we are in now.  no coordinator and  
no one willing to take on the role or rather no one willing to risk  
taking on the role.

the reason for me to offer to take a year term is to
a. establish the staggered coordinatorship
b. as a bootstrap to developing a method of picking coordinators with  
legitimacy.

but i am more then willing to stand aside for any other method  
someone might suggest.

a.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance