permitguy
REGISTERED
I agree the current committee system needs a major overhaul, including removal of their ability to hold changes hostage by forcing a super-majority floor vote. I'm in favor of having them elected, but that requires work to learn about the candidates. Most won't bother with that work (I'm not talking about those who participate here).
I disagree that affiliations with other organizations should disqualify an otherwise qualified governmental representative from voting, but would be in favor of requiring certification for voting on the subject matter at hand.
I also disagree on giving each jurisdiction only one vote, regardless of size. I wouldn't be opposed to balancing this with some sort of a two-house system, but that could also add to the bureaucracy (not always a good thing).
I would be in favor of extending the code development process. Once every three years is too often, in my opinion.
I know this; it doesn't matter if or how it changes, there is no way to make everyone happy. No matter what is done, someone will be unhappy, and unhappy people are vocal . . .
I disagree that affiliations with other organizations should disqualify an otherwise qualified governmental representative from voting, but would be in favor of requiring certification for voting on the subject matter at hand.
I also disagree on giving each jurisdiction only one vote, regardless of size. I wouldn't be opposed to balancing this with some sort of a two-house system, but that could also add to the bureaucracy (not always a good thing).
I would be in favor of extending the code development process. Once every three years is too often, in my opinion.
I know this; it doesn't matter if or how it changes, there is no way to make everyone happy. No matter what is done, someone will be unhappy, and unhappy people are vocal . . .