John wrote: > There should be nothing controversial in the above suggestion. All > the "power" of the Executive Committee is in the hands of the five > people already appointed who group members already know, respect and > trust. Since we are doing some new things it might be beneficial to > use "trust" for a while, while we develop a few rules.
I don't remember giving the committee any "power". The way I remember it, the committee was formed to take the "responsibility" of organising meetings and workshops. I don't believe any rules are required for this task. If we give the committee some power, then some rules regarding their use of that power might be required. With responsibity comes accountability. If the meetings and workshops are a failure and don't meet the needs of the CLUG then the CLUG will need to figure out why and find a way to fix it. That might mean harrassing them to do better, or replacing them. On the other hand, if the meetings and workshops are a roaring success, then we need to remember to show our appreciation to those who made it a success. Later David Kirk
