Hi Charles, :-) On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 00:18, Charles-H. Schulz <charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > thank you a lot for this!!!
No problem. I've got a watch on the page, and will visit whenever there's a change then. ;-) >> 1) "(however, ESC members who are also members of the BoD can only >> cast one single vote in this election, regardless of their membership >> of both bodies)": So which body do they cast their vote in? How and >> when is that decision taken? The choice could change the outcome of >> the voting. > > Right, that sounds clunky so let me clarify: members of the ESC who are > also members of the BoD only vote at the BoD and not at the ESC. Is it > better? I understood what you meant, no problem there. The ambiguity is how the decision is taken about which body they vote on... Especially as throwing their vote in on one body or the other could maybe weight the election in one direction or another, and change the result. My suggestion was that it would be good to lay down unambiguous rules for this... >> 2) "(a specific list of names, or one name only, will have been >> submitted by the BoD and the AB)": How would the list be drawn up? >> Perhaps you need at least a cross-reference to another clause in the >> bye-laws that resolves that question? If there's only one name, then >> there would be no point in voting at all... > > I can clarify that, but in essence I guess 1)people will nominate > themselves to the BoD and 1)that the BoD as well as the AB can nominate > someone. OK, I get the idea. Perhaps a separate, short paragraph explaining that might be good? I could draft one tomorrow and submit it in a standalone edit that will be easy to identify and roll back/modify if it doesn't quite say what you want...? >> 3) "However, if three different people are nominated, then a >> conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one >> nominee and making a choice between two nominees only.": That could >> give rise to a difficult situation... > > Yes. :-) I guess this is the point that, IMVHO, might be in most need of an unequivocal procedure, as it could give rise to controversial situations... HTH. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
