Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:48:46 +0000 From: David Rush <[email protected]>
2009/2/22 Brian Harvey <[email protected]>: >> (4) None of the Editors may be a member of the Steering Committee. ... > What on earth is the rationale for this rule? Conflict of interest. The SC could theoretically change the rules to favor a particular editor. Don't jump to too many conclusions about the reasons for this. Consulting the archives of the group who drafted the charter I find: An initial draft of the charter contained no language about dual membership. I argued that we should explicitly state whether it was permitted or disallowed. I didn't care much myself either way, but I sensed that other people were assming that dual membership was disallowed, so I suggested a sentence that said it explicitly. Somebody else said that was probably the right thing, and so my sentence was included in the next draft. But the notion of "conflict of interest" was never explicitly discussed. The charter grew that way because it just felt reasonable to us all at the time. I suppose we might have reconsidered this restrition if there were any people who -obviously- belonged in both groups. But that just didn't happen. The new Steering Committee inherits the power to ammend the charter (which the current Steering Committee were extremely cautious about exercising), and so they can change things like this. They can even pull a full 1787 and replace our Articles of Confereration with a brand new Constitution. - Alan _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
