On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj(a)alk.edu.pl> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
My impression is therefore that some sort of a
preparatory work is needed
to avoid these two traps. Ideally, there would be a drafting group with a
broad representation (possibly the members of the group will be prohibited
to sit in the first edition of the elected body), and the Board will
preliminary express an interest (so that the group knows the chances are
not zero). Of course we can just agree on electing the representative body
witout actually asking the Board, but I am not sure this would be the right
way of doing it.
Agreed. A mixed working group could be a way to go.
From my perspective, anything which would move the
situation from the
status quo would work.
Presently, the discussion has been started on Meta and it would be
good to see your input there. I don't see the proposal as anything in
the form take it or leave it, but as the beginning of the discussion
(or reloading it after a lot of time).
Working group could be created based on that discussion; the other
option -- and I'd like to believe in it -- is to create the final
proposal based on completely public discussion.
Significant difference between the previous attempts to do something
like this is the fact that at least three Board members (Denny,
Dariusz and Guy) support something similar to this idea. Previously,
Board was the body which at least passively obstructed the idea. That
means that we have much better chances for success this time.
So, please join the discussion; if you have a different idea as the
whole proposal, write it there, so we could discuss. We could
rearrange the page into the set of relatively coherent proposals and
discuss about the proposals integrally, about their features and
finally find the best possible solution, which would be the product of
as wide as possible consensus.