| 1 |
On 07/15/2016 04:32 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/14/2016 04:43 AM, Wes Cilldhaire wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Holding an election and reminding other nominees that there's only |
| 4 |
>> 1's accepted so far does not preclude the 'no lead' option, I think |
| 5 |
>> you might be jumping the gun slightly NP. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Irrespective of that , I won't continue facilitating this election given |
| 8 |
> the level of debate. If the proxy maint project wants to violate GLEP 39 |
| 9 |
> it is up to the project |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
You posted clarification from the council that shows that the council |
| 13 |
ruled on the matter that the council will not force a project to have or |
| 14 |
not have a leader. It's up to what works for the project. Now, as a |
| 15 |
result, not having a leader is a valid and compliant choice for this |
| 16 |
project. You are entitled to want a lead, and as part of the |
| 17 |
"manifesto" period, you can argue that we are better off with a lead |
| 18 |
than not. But a "no lead" option, as per your submitted evidence, is |
| 19 |
A-OK from the council's standpoint. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
NP-Hardass |
Archives