Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:29:12 +0100 From: Michael Sperber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mitch, Alan and Guy for their excellent service on the Steering Committee: Their work has been more valuable and important than is publically known, and I am deeply grateful. You're welcome. A comment on the election process: I think the general concept of having the community select the Steering Committee is good. I'm a bit worried that the process (at least as I currently understand it) will ultimately more or less independently select three people and throw them together. As we all know (even if we'd all like things to be different), some combinations of personalities work better together than others, and with only three people on the Steering Committee, it may be difficult to counterbalance bad chemistry. Indeed, the current charter explicitly calls for a three member SC, and it does seem like a bad personality combination could make that fail to work well. The -current- SC could have amended the charter to make the -next- SC larger (say, 5 members), but we wanted to avoid tinkering with things on our way out the door -- preferring instead to leave that sort of thing up to the next -next- SC. But it does strike me that altering the -size- of the SC is one of the few alterations to the charter that it would be really awkward to perform after our replacements are selected -- forcing them to immediately select more people somehow. So if anyone wants to argue that we should alter the charter so that this becomes an election for 5 (or some other number) seats, I think that would be in order during this comment period. I'm not saying we'd definitely agree to doing that -- I'm not speaking in any official capacity here -- I'm just saying that this is the kind of thing that it might be productive to discuss. - Alan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
