On 5 May 2015, at 16:26, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> in the case where two chairs are due to resign in the same year, the
> process for deciding who stands down is still ambiguous. When this was
> discussed in January, there was some consensus that this should be
> clarified.
See clause 7.
On 05/05/2015 14:28, Jim Reid wrote:
> Colleagues, here is what I hope could be a co-chair selection process
> that the WG can adopt. It's been tweaked to take account of recent
> feedback and should now be free of ambiguities.
in the case where two chairs are due to resign in the same year, the
p
Colleagues, here is what I hope could be a co-chair selection process that the
WG can adopt. It's been tweaked to take account of recent feedback and should
now be free of ambiguities. The most significant change is a new Clause 7: how
to handle things whenever an unforseen situation arises. ie
