--On Friday, August 29, 2008 02:25:18 PM -0400 David Boyes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the concept of a single individual with ultimate decision-making
> power,
>> who
>> has both the ability to override any decision made by someone else
and
> the
>> inability to pass responsibility on to someone else. We don't have
> anyone
>> like that in our organization.
>
> Yet. People are people, wherever you go. It *will* happen, and it
needs
> to be planned for.
I'm sorry, David, but your comment doesn't make any sense to me in the
context of this conversation about how to handle ties in chair
elections.
See quoted comment above my response. You will eventually encounter
someone who claims those powers, or simply refuses to leave a position
when it's past time to go -- and is actively harming the organization.
This organization (or any other, fwiw) is not immune to human nature.
I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with election tiebreakers?
If you follow the entire thread, it should be fairly clear that I was not
saying "we don't have anyone who likes to claim power, so we don't need to
worry about it"; I was saying "the organization we are setting up has no
position which has ultimate power or responsibility, and so it does not
make sense to argue for a particular means of breaking ties based on the
principal that such a position does or must exist".
Now, if you have read Simon's latest draft and feel it does not have
adequate safeguards to prevent a power grab, feel free to start a new
thread on that topic. But please don't hijack the thread about breaking
ties in chair elections, because we actually do need to reach a conclusion
on that question.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
