On 06/01/2015 12:41, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
> of co-chairs. Terms will be staggered so that one term expires every
> year.
This is also semantically non-deterministic in the case where the number of
co-chairs changes.
>From
On 07/01/2015 16:20, Robert Story wrote:
> I agree. It seems silly to limit the term of someone willing to serve and
> who has wg support.
This approach favours the creation of an incumbency, which most people
agree is not good governance.
> If, however, the consensus is in favor of term limits,
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 22:20:07 +0100 Peter wrote:
PK> [...] To that extent, the limits are superfluous
PK> because common sense will prevail.
PK> Should they be deemed necessary, there are probably bigger fish to fry,
PK> e.g., the impeachment clause.
I agree. It seems silly to limit the term of so
At Tue, 06 Jan 2015 12:41:52 +,
Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> I suggest replacing these paragraphs [...]
I ought perhaps also to have mentioned that I was just wordsmithing.
I don't wish to take a position on either side of the discussion of
whether a term limit is appropriate.
Best rega
> On 6 Jan 2015, at 12:41, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
>
> At Mon, 5 Jan 2015 17:33:48 +,
> Jim Reid wrote:
>>
>> Happy new year everyone.
>
> +1!
>
> I suggest replacing these paragraphs
>
>> [2] A co-chair will serve a term of N years, where N is the number
>> of co-chairs. Terms will be s
