No subject

the practices we reject.. That's why they are so widely used- they work,
often times in a way that's a lot less messy and a lot easier than the way
we do these things. Personally, I'm not a particularly huge fan of certain
aspects of some methods of consensus or of complicated preference voting
schemes (beyond IRV) but the BRPP has been working with what we've given,
although we have discussed the alternatives many times.

All to say go for it- we BRPPers are a flexible lot (or we'd like to think
so....).

Andy Parks, BRPPer
---------------

Gary Novosielski wrote:


> I'm generally opposed to the use of co-chairs in any organizational

> structure.  In my view, the proper arrangement is a Chair and a Vice

> Chair (and if necessary, Second, Third, etc., Vice Chairs), so that

> there are clear lines of responsibility and delegation.

>

> In practice, it is not possible, as this proposal attempts, to assign

> responsibilities equally to two people.  If the responsibility does not

> lie with one person, then it doesn't lie anywhere.

>

> This objection is not unique to this proposal. I'm aware that much of

> the GP organization makes heavy use of co-chairs, and I don't expect

> this culture to change upon a word from me.  Nevertheless, based upon

> experience, I find it to be a bad idea, and I simply wish to be on

> record as opposed to it.

>

> _______________________________________________

> Natlcomvotes mailing list

> To send a message to the list, write to:

> Natlcomvotes at green.gpus.org

> To unsubscribe or change your list options, go to:

> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/natlcomvotes