My proposal didn't envision elections. Only three people are
involved, so public campaigning, lobbying, and voting won't happen.
If three reasonable people of good will can't agree, then they can go
into a closet and do rock-paper-scissors until a winner emerges. Or
they can share the Chair.
Personally, I don't agree that the ALAC needs a single face, a single
voice, a single person as a point of contact. Yes, we probably need a
recipients of that email address should be the rotating Executive
Committee, not one person. I think we will benefit, both functionally
and in the eyes of the community, from being an organization with
many voices, many faces, and both a real and perceived ability to
work together in a relatively flat organizational structure that
doesn't elevate any one person above the others.
Bret
On Jul 9, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
With respect to this proposal, perhaps as the staff I could comment
on the idea from the perspective of administrative overhead, and also
perception outside the community:
Firstly, if the chair changes that often, you will have to have some
way to select between the three regional representatives where more
than one of them is willing to serve. This means more elections.
Elections cause a fair amount of administrative overhead, and
generally involve campaigning, lobbying others for votes, etc. This
takes away time from policy discussions and other substantive work.
Secondly, as everyone is well aware, after spending years in
procedural discussions and forming RALOs, those stakeholders outside
of At-Large are very much looking to see how much policy work the
community does. Having just finished forming all the structures, do
you think that those outside of At-Large will see it as a good sign
that you are turning immediately to desiging more administrative
processes which involve elections?
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list