Re: [VOTE] Change in CIS project structure
"Ameena M. Ali" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.education.cis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <00a001c4317b$bd624910$51c25ed1@mpc> |
+1 Ameena ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Gardler" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 1:49 PM Subject: [cis] [VOTE] Change in CIS project structure > My personal circumstances are currently somewhat different to how they > were when this group was started. I no longer find I have the time to > focus on the management and coordination of CIS. This has manifested > itself with a lack of attention from myself and a consequent reduction > of productivity. > > One of the reasons for this withdrawal is because of the success of > another project I am involved with. This has been proposed as a member > of the CIS group (see other thread). > > Last week I had a meeting with Allan Samaroo who has recently shown > considerable interest in driving CIS forward. Allan also sourced three > of the machines in the CIS lab right at the start of this excercise. > Allan has agreed to do what he can to breath new life into CIS. > > Therefore, I am proposing some changes to the structure of CIS: > > 1) Karen Lequay is named as having a veto. However, Karen has not been > active here for some time. Therefore I feel her veto should be revoked. > > 2) I am no longer able to actively commit to the central CIS project, > consequently I propose that my veto be revoked. I wish to remain a > member of this community and will still use my vote. However, I do not > feel it is appropriate to maintain my veto. > > 3) Nissan Dookeran was one of the original proponents of this project. > He will shortly be returning to Trinidad and Tobago and I would > encourage you to keep him on board and allow him to retain his veto. > However, Nissan is currently fairly inactive here due to commitments in > Barbados. > > 4) Allan Samaroo should be awarded a veto in my place since he is active. > > Of course I vote +1 to all these. This is a simple amjority vote and > lazy consensus applies. > > Ross >