Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:31:28 -0700 From: Rick Walker <walker@cutter.hpl.hp.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3099$foo@default> Subject: Re: ICPS vote
> Tom Massey writes:
> Since the ICPS vote has come up. I notice that there are 6 positions
> to be filled and 8 candidates. Am I right in interpreting this to
> mean that the CPN editors (who are running) will not automatically be
> members (or ex-officio members) of the Board?
Yes. That's right. The editors are *not* automatically members of the
Board.
However, the election just decides who has *voting power* on the board.
It would not surprise me if all 8 candidates continue to stay engaged
with the ICPS even if in a non-voting capacity. Believe me - we will
never turn away an enthusiastic volunteer!
> It would seem to me that as the newsletter is a critcal and demanding
> segment of ICPS activities, inclusion of the editors as board members
> would be automatic. If they are not, it changes the complextion of
> Board staffing.
The editors have always participated on all board discussion via the
ICPS listserv group. Nearly all of our decisions have been by informal
concensus in which the editors had a say. I think it would be foolish
for the board to do otherwise.
> This has implications for manpower issues among other things.
In what way?
I expect that as the ICPS gets more engaged in conservation, research,
education, etc., that the board will get pretty busy. It would likely
overload the editors if they were forced to split their committment
between publishing work and board work.
I've seen several volunteers burn out from overwork in the last 4 years.
To avoid this in the future, the general trend has been to spread out the
responsibilities rather than trying to double them up.
Best regards,
-- Rick Walker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:36 PST