Hi Theo, On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Theo10011 <[email protected]> wrote: > > We did agree on recognizing new models and entities, the last I remember the > suggestion was still creation of an AssCom or similar body. The first I > heard of extending ChapCom scope is from Sue's blog, mentioning the > recommendation of MR group. Even ChapCom confirmed they heard about this > yesterday, considering there are a few people from ChapCom and the board in > the group, this was news to me.
A separate AffCom was discussed first. The MR discussions on Meta covered various ways to realize the idea of such a committee -- from a separate AffCom that works with ChapCom, to a merged group that addressed all affiliations. The Board was primarily concerned about committee overload (something we discussed in this group as well) - having too many people on different bodies. And so suggested a change to ChapCom to a new body that might draw energy away from it. > Bence hit the point on the head in his reply on Internal. Yes. we should clarify our own conclusions in the discussion on Meta, and note the places where our working group had other ideas or did not reach consensus. SJ _______________________________________________ Movementroles mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/movementroles
