Re: RFD: Proposed change to Committee Guidelines

In message <7o89j0F3oc0vkU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, kat <littlelionne@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Matthew had a problem. He wondered if he should be on the list before the time was up.

Seems to me common sense can be used and the current Committee can do the sensible thing.

He seeks to clarify that, and as far as that goes, I agree.

OK.

However, I am not sure that it helps. Certainly, new members will know they have to wait, but I could interpret the wording as any time after the period of objections etc, until January 1st. I don't see how it can be tied down more firmly without running up against the risk of having to change it again, as you say. Real Life gets in the way, sometimes.

Thanks.

Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
(tfl@xxxxxxxxx)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Amend charter of uk.rec.cycling.moderated
    ... kat wrote: ... 'subject' so a different aspect of the charter could be changed ... has support, we won't know until the vote, since the noisy and ... I'm interested to note that a member of the committee thinks they ...
    (uk.net.news.config)
  • Re: uk.* control
    ... >In message, John Bean ... >I'm happy with the Committee being able to use common sense in cases ... >changes that micro-manage the Committee. ... committee members. ...
    (uk.net.news.config)
  • Re: RFD: delete newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
    ... I'm surprised that kat, who is a member of the Committee, has ... you changing the settings but still unable to send to hotmail. ...
    (uk.net.news.config)
  • Re: Amend the Committee Document (Elections)
    ... kat wrote: ... If they can't agree on a method, they are all to retire and be ... method of choosing the candidate. ... It doesn't matter who does this, the committee, UKVoting or any random ...
    (uk.net.news.management)
  • Committee Elections 2011 - An Apology
    ... I'd like to begin by apologising to kat, and the rest of the Committee, for not notifying them of the tiebreak prior to the posting of the First CFN. ... Each of the potential candidates was allocated one of the possible values based on their order in the Committee Document (i.e. kat was 1, Graham was 2, Clive was 3 and Matthew was 4). ...
    (uk.net.news.management)