On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/8/14 9:07 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > >> For the record I still don't support notably increasing its size. >> > > What is your definition of `notable` here? Is 12 or 18 or 24 ok? I think the current size is, if anything, too large. I would not want to see it grow beyond a dozen. > I do support moving as much as possible of what it does to the AC at >> large, or community groups, and making the AB's work as transparent as >> possible (this allows AC reps to check that the people they trust really >> *are* representing them). >> > > What specific role/task cannot be handled by the AC and why? AC members have a primary responsibility to their employer. In my role on the AB, I do not. General AC representatives already have their own substantial time commitment; we could not just add to that. I think it is also important that the AB make a significant commitment to >> be available, that AC reps at large do not and should not have to make. >> > > (I guess I'll have to wait for my `secret decoder ring` to arrive on July > 1 to try to understand why the entire Membership shouldn't be privy to info > shared with such a tiny subset of Members.) > I look forward to another lively discussion of openness. :) -C
Received on Monday, 9 June 2014 13:43:41 UTC