On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 08:20:36PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Possible proposal: the current council meeting rules be updated with > one of the following two clauses: > > > A proxy must not be an existing council member, and any single person > > may not be a proxy for more than one person at any given meeting. > > (The difference being, the former allows a council member to appoint > another council member as their proxy, so long as said member forfeits > their own role.)
I think the latter makes more sense - only allowing non-council members to represent absent council members. That is how it works in the boards I have been involved with. > * It will lead to increased discussion, which in turn means the council > is more likely to notice any problems with items on the agenda. > > * It will avoid having council meetings made up of two or three council > members, all acting as proxies for other members. More eyes on the matter is a good thing. If we allow council members to proxy for other council members we might end up with quite a few eyes on the discussion... > * This fits in better with the way I was intending proxies to work when > I wrote the slacker boot proposal, rather than the way they've ended up > working due to insufficient pedantry in the original description :) Sounds good to me. > Arguable disadvantage: > > * It makes it harder for council members to all go "oops, can't make > it, so vapier is my proxy" at the last minute. Yeah, well - I think we can live with that. How many times has the proxy function been used so far? > On the same subject, I'd also like to see the "meeting participants" > table updated to explicitly list proxies, for example in the form > "jaervosz (for koon)". Yes, that would be natural. ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd
pgpiFiWsgzNxs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
