On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 2:53 AM Geoff Keating <[email protected]> wrote:
> Although the details do need work, I support Kirk’s approach here, which > is that the bylaws should contain a set of default rules which describe > everything needed to operate a working group or a subcommittee, except for > the name and scope. It is much better if a motion to create a working > group can be a few lines long, and focuses on the critical details of the > working group, rather than having to be several pages of mostly boilerplate > copied and pasted, perhaps incorrectly, from multiple sources. > Yes, as I mentioned, there was consensus that such an approach is good. However, it was also pointed out that trying to do it piecemeal is going to keep making mistakes - like this text does - and create more work for everyone reviewing. It's more important to do a ballot well than to do it first, and it's more beneficial to the Forum to take the time to do the work.
_______________________________________________ Public mailing list [email protected] https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
