cc:s trimmed; I think everyone's on the list. On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 08:17:00AM +0100, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Removal of the Board is a crucial and delicate issue.
This is true, but the board has already argued convincingly that this is a corner case. If it's really a corner case, then making a perfect process for it seems like investing more effort than warranted. And as I argued yesterday (though I know you said you don't accept the argument), we are going to have to accept that, if things ever get so bad that people are willing to remove the board despite being unwilling to claim they violated the bylaws, we'll be well into a very bad political landscape. More rules are unlikely to help.
Otherwise the process would once again is unfavourably treated the GAC due to its exclusion from exercising its community power as results of the Carve-out Concept
We've been over that ground: the GAC gets to choose whether it's in the community power or whether it's going to use its special GAC-only power. Nobody else has the power to force the GAC's choice. Yes, the GAC is treated differently under one of those branches, but that is a consequence of GAC's own decisions -- a choice that the GAC makes knowing what its later options are. I really do not care very much how this gets sorted out, but I think it is time to stop debating it. We should unite around the report as it stands and ship it. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com