[governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire

[CW Mail]

The rotation principle requires the latter: Maximum of three years.  
(perhaps not excluding coming back later.)

The former could result in 'last in first out'. That is not rotation.
Otherwise, it would be more transparent to designate certain seats as  
permanent.

Just a thought

CW





On 10 Oct 2010, at 18:53, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <4CAF7812.2070608 at gmail.com>, at 15:29:14 on Fri, 8 Oct  
> 2010, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> writes
>> Sorry to introduce a new point at this late date, but I think we  
>> should be asking that the MAG structure implement the rotation  
>> strategy that was introduced a few years ago. By now we should have  
>> seen a complete rotation of the original members, allowing for  
>> continuous renewal and new ideas.
>
> Do you think the existing rule is "change a third (any third) of the  
> members each year", or "everyone has a maximum of three years" -  
> which forces the renewal of only the longest-serving third?
>
> I used to assume it was the latter, but my observations suggest it  
> might be closer to the former.
> -- 
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t