On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Steve Langasek wrote: > Regrettably, there hasn't been any discussion since the end of the > last vote about how to manage these rotations properly without > adding undue overhead, so I guess that may be something we need to > discuss again this round. For my part, I definitely think that a > 1-month rotation would be too short, regardless of whether any > voting was required, just because anything that happens in the TC > takes long enough that we would be doing a whole lot of shuffling of > current business between chairs.
Since the only major power that the Chair has is standing in for the project leader under 6.1.8 and 7.1(2); and minorly, voting even when they're a developer involved in a dispute, perhaps it would be better to maintain a chair that is relatively static, and assign members of the committee to steward issues that are brought to the committee in order instead? That way, each issue would have a person who was responsible to deal with the issue, regardless of who the actual chair was, and the chair would remain a position existing for constitutional compliance. [The chair rotation could continue on unabaited even if this was adopted, of course.] Don Armstrong -- There is no such thing as "social gambling." Either you are there to cut the other bloke's heart out and eat it--or you're a sucker. If you don't like this choice--don't gamble. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
