Comment on size/shape of ICPS board

From: PTemple001@aol.com
Date: Sat Sep 26 1998 - 02:06:51 PDT


Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 05:06:51 EDT
From: PTemple001@aol.com
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg3120$foo@default>
Subject: Comment on size/shape of ICPS board

As soon as I read the nominations for ICPS I felt same as some other writers.

I feel the editors should be automatically on the board and with full voting
rights. Not to put them on the board appears foolish as they work so hard.
They must also have very good views on contributors' thoughts, so what better
place to use such than the board.

However, I also believe that a Conservation specialist is needed. OK. I own
up that Mad is a personal friend (unless I've done something terrible
recently!) so you may consider this biased. But we didn't really concentrate
on Conservation before (though valiant efforts from some, including Barry, on
several occassions, despite seemingly horrendous workloads). I feel that this
slot needs an additional post as it's really a full time task on it's own and
additional to most work that has gone before. So I would propose two editors
and a conservation officer plus 4 additional posts as the preferred size of
the board.

As to being a volunteer contr9butor, I owe at least one if not two or three
articles (I will get to do these Barry, promise) and am working on software
now that may contribute to ICPS. So I've no time for more as yet. But I'd
consider helping in my retirement! (Some would say I should retire now.)

Regards

Paul



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:36 PST