CZ Talk:Election July-August 2013/Referenda/9: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Jackson |
imported>Anthony.Sebastian (→Pros and cons: Attn: PETER JACKSON, JOHN STEPHENSON) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:I think you've posted this on the wrong page. It looks like a comment on Referendum 1. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | :I think you've posted this on the wrong page. It looks like a comment on Referendum 1. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 16:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
::The suggested wording addition in /9 seems reasonable to me, but John Stephenson should weigh in. Remember, you're referring to the transition phase. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:11, 25 July 2013
Pros and cons
Although the basis for combining the councils is a lack of bodies to fill the positions, that is not really a good argument.
The two councils have different functions. Capacities needed in one area, for example, editor, are different from those in the other area. A potential candidate may be viewed, or view themselves, better adapted to one rather than the other capacity.
Allowing an individual can be elected to serve in either in one office or in both offices, that is a better idea than confounding structural functions. John R. Brews 14:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you've posted this on the wrong page. It looks like a comment on Referendum 1. Peter Jackson 16:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- The suggested wording addition in /9 seems reasonable to me, but John Stephenson should weigh in. Remember, you're referring to the transition phase. Anthony.Sebastian 18:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)