<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">I would thus like to make two proposals.</div><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">1. We select the two candidates as above, in my opinion with
Vincent in the two-year tenure and Darwin in the one year tenure.
By consensus if possible.</p></div></div></blockquote>I have no opinion on this one way or the other. Since it seems to have general support of the community, I have no opposition to this proposal.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">2. Given that the next meeting is two months from now, I would
like to propose that we measure these tenures as from "this year"
such that the effective tenures will be one and two years
respectively from now, and not "puppet" and "one year"
effectively.</p></div></div></blockquote></div>I am no more eager than anyone else to repeat this process in two months. However, making this change to the tenure at this time is premature<div class="">and outside the rules. Once we have co-chairs, a simple call for community consensus to extend their terms under section 3.6 seems like the</div><div class="">expedient process. However, I will point out that since such a call would create a conflict of interest for the co-chairs in question, we would need</div><div class="">to seek alternate co-chairs to evaluate the consensus of the community around doing so. There are provisions for this in the CPM IIRC, and we</div><div class="">can appoint interim chairs at the meeting to handle this particular matter.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>