7/29/05

Back

On 7/29/05, Sameer Yalamanchi wrote:
> >> We should hold an election for an interm DST. We pick one of our
> >> own to
> >> do the duties required of him until such a time as the appeal is
> >> finished. I find it hard to believe that no one has the ability in our
> >> domain to run things. I think we just don't want to betray a friend
> >> and supplant him.
> >
> > To supplement this, if the whole thing resolves with Jason being able
> > to fill the position again, we can always either ask the 'interim' DST
> > to step down for a new election, and if he/she refuses just hold a
> > referendum to get his skank little powergrubbing hands off of our
> > office.
>
> This sounds very much like what I suggested at the domain meeting a few
> months back. Oh wait, it's exactly what I suggested. Except for the
> skank part.
>
> The majority of the members at the meeting were against the idea then.

Except for the interim part. I'm pretty sure the worry was that with an official DST in place, the higher ups could just ignore complaints as ineffective whining. I'm pretty sure the feeling at the time was that a truely tempory DST was not an option. At the meeting, we all seemed to be under the impression that the only two options available were to elect a new DST or not to elect a new DST, by voting None of the Above, and there wasn't a third option.

I believe the best compromise would be to have a temporary DST, but the only way to please those that voted None of the Above would be to make it very clear that this DST was indeed temporary, until we got the results of The Situation (tm).

Katie Boyd
US2002045235

Back