Hi, :-) Having been given permission to proofread and revise the initial draft, I presumed it would be OK to do the same for subsequent amendments. I hope I did not overstep myself there; if I did, please say so and I will, of course, desist. However, I came up with a revised text as below (it simply states exactly the same things, but re-worded).
It seems that there are still some big ambiguities that would need to be resolved: "The Chairperson is elected by a special electoral college comprised of the BoD, the AB and and the ESC (however, ESC members who are also members of the BoD can only cast one single vote in this election, regardless of their membership of both bodies). The vote by this special college is not decided by the votes of the individual members taken as a whole; instead, each respective body holds a vote among its members, and returns a nomination of one candidate (a specific list of names, or one name only, will have been submitted by the BoD and the AB). The three bodies therefore arrive at a shortlist of three nominees. If one of the three nominees has a majority within the shortlist (has two votes out of three, or is a unanimous choice), the outcome is deemed to be decisive and the electoral process is concluded. However, if three different people are nominated, then a conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one nominee and making a choice between two nominees only. The Chairperson's term of office is two (2) years, but he/she can serve as many terms as are seen fitting." 1) "(however, ESC members who are also members of the BoD can only cast one single vote in this election, regardless of their membership of both bodies)": So which body do they cast their vote in? How and when is that decision taken? The choice could change the outcome of the voting. 2) "(a specific list of names, or one name only, will have been submitted by the BoD and the AB)": How would the list be drawn up? Perhaps you need at least a cross-reference to another clause in the bye-laws that resolves that question? If there's only one name, then there would be no point in voting at all... 3) "However, if three different people are nominated, then a conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one nominee and making a choice between two nominees only.": That could give rise to a difficult situation... IMHO, you would need to establish a clear procedure for this, to avoid some tense deadlocks in the future... HTH. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
