On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 13:50:20 [email protected] wrote: > 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.
Whoah whoah whoah, when did this become a proposal with any kind of real wording? This was discussion about working on the idea. > > 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
