Niall,
Great points, in drafting the intent was that the chair up in the rotation
would expire and be up for re-selection where if the chair was not removed by
consensus would be eligible to be a candidate for that same slot. A chair could
resign or be removed by consensus would trigger a selection process.
William
On 12/11/17, 4:39 PM, "Niall O'Reilly" <niall.orei...@ucd.ie> wrote:
On 11 Dec 2017, at 17:40, William Sylvester via db-wg wrote:
> 4) One chair per year is replaced.
This caught my eye.
It's not clear to me whether this means
a: one chair per year stands down and may stand as a candidate
for immediate re-selection;
or
b: one chair per year stands down and may not stand as a candidate
for re-selection until some period (to be specified) has elapsed.
I think it might avoid future confusion if it were made explicit
which of these interpretations is intended. I'm not inclined to
prefer either over the other.
In case a chair is removed by consensus, will the person involved
be excluded from immediately standing as a candidate for re-selection?
FWIW, I should think so.
Again in case a chair is removed by consensus, will that removal meet
the requirement for one chair per year to stand down? It seems to me
that, for the sake of continuity, this would be advantageous.
I hope this helps.
Niall
