<20080916074412.A7DD682837@???> <42098.152.78.237.12.1221554676.squirrel@81.178.46.205>
X-Priority: 5 (Lowest)
Message-ID: <e2f90328f4de51159ed82cb959eb0ad2@localhost>
X-Sender: tony@???
Received: from srv-gw06.tauntons.ac.uk [212.219.117.82] with HTTP/1.1 (POST);
Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:15:13 +0000
User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.1-rc2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:44:36 +0100 (BST), "Damian Brasher"
<lug@???> wrote:
> Tony Whitmore wrote:
>> By doing what, precisely? To be honest Damian, it seems like you're
>> actively trying to put people off from standing by using scare tactics
>> whilst changing your mind repeatedly about standing yourself. With an
>> unusually high number of people standing down from the committee this
> time
>> around what is actually needed is encouragement and not intimidation.
>
> All in your opinion,
Indeed, it is only my opinion, albeit an opinion based on four years
service on the committee and the experiences of encouraging people to stand
for election.
> sometimes it's not possible to have a reasonable
> discussion with you Tony and I'm not blind.
I'm sorry you feel that way although I'd be grateful if you could point out
the parts of this conversation where I have been unreasonable. Again, feel
free to use the public archive to do so.
> Do you not think it fair that the current committee point out the risk
> associated with joining this committee to members, it has been
overlooked?
That's not really a sentence, but if I take the first clause on its own,
then I have to remind you that the current committee aren't lawyers and
aren't aware of any specific risks associated with being committee members.
Of course, not being lawyers, we could be wrong.
> In other words make it clear to potential committee members they are
> liable in the event of a serious problem, just that alone is a basic
> responsibility which has not been done.
If you think there is a legal grounding in law for that to be the case,
then please do so. I have no legal training and no additional understanding
which makes me think your advice is correct. Once again, not being a
lawyer, I am quite willing to admit I could be wrong.
> I'll stand as GO now the point has been made and judging by the responses
> others are willing to stand too.
Excellent, thanks for being willing to stand. I hope you find someone to
nominate and second you formally.
> As GO I will suggest to the committee we investigate liability, the risk
> and feasible measures to protect the committee and ultimately HL members
> and will be more than happy to undertake some work as part of the role.
That sounds like a sensible starting point for a GO role.
Tony
