| 1 |
Andreas K. Huettel: |
| 2 |
> Am Dienstag 17 Juni 2014, 09:55:29 schrieb Chris Reffett: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I nominate (no particular order, all are technically nominated already but |
| 5 |
>> wanted to add my specific nominations anyway): |
| 6 |
> (...) |
| 7 |
>> -dilfridge |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Thanks Chris. I accept the nomination. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> (I guess whose nomination I accept does not matter. :) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> More over the next days. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
From what I see you are on both council and comrel. I think that is a |
| 17 |
conflict of interest. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Council and ComRel should check on each other. If someone is member of |
| 20 |
both, then it is likely that he will avoid acting against either party |
| 21 |
even if it necessary. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Some worst case scenarios: |
| 24 |
* you have a problem with a council member => you go to ComRel in need |
| 25 |
of help |
| 26 |
* you have a problem with a ComRel member => you go to council, because |
| 27 |
going to ComRel isn't necessarily an option (e.g. the person is the |
| 28 |
ComRel lead or you think that ComRel isn't in a functional state) |
| 29 |
* If someone is on both parties and you got a problem with him, then the |
| 30 |
situation is delicate and checks and balances are likely to fail |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
This isn't a personal thing with you. I just think it's a flaw in the |
| 33 |
system and even if I trust you to be able to handle it... it should |
| 34 |
still not be allowed, IMO. |
Archives