| 1 |
On 11/10/2016 03:42 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/09/2016 02:41 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
.. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
>> I'm not suggesting this will fix everything, but it would be a start. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> I agree that it'd be a good start. As you noted however, it's only a |
| 11 |
> start. We'd need to separate the powers entirely and prohibit staffing |
| 12 |
> overlaps if we want to take that part of our metastructure seriously. It |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
This is inconsequential. At one hand you're arguing for council |
| 15 |
oversight, and council is the one that would do this fully to begin with |
| 16 |
if comrel was to be shut down. On the other hand you want to block the |
| 17 |
possibility for day-to-day oversight by having members paricipating in |
| 18 |
both bodies? it is a nonsensical position. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 24 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 25 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives