Torrie,
While I appreciate your input, I don't feel your "implied authority" argument
is valid. I do not see the need to change the proposal at this time.
Thanks,
Devin Wolfe
________________________________
From: Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>
To: SYN/HAK discussion list <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: [SH-Discuss] Meeting minutes from 2014-02-25
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 06:17:31 [email protected] wrote:
> I don't follow. If you have stated many times, champions do not have
> authority. Why would anti-authoritarian-type-people have any issue with
> this what so ever? They would just serve as another member on the committee
> concerned about the growth of SYNHAK.
Technically, they have no authority.
Realistically, champions have been called the leaders of SYNHAK, benevolent
dictator for life, presidents, directors, and many other titles that imply
some kind of authority.
Consider also the situation of a champion taking over another officer's job
while they're still on the CWG. Suddenly they are on the CWG and have actual
powers.
>
> Devin.
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
