The same group that chose the panelists and will choose their successors.<span></span><br><br>On Monday, July 27, 2015, Malcolm Hutty <<a href="mailto:malcolm@linx.net">malcolm@linx.net</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> On 27 Jul 2015, at 03:37, Greg Shatan <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'gregshatanipc@gmail.com')">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Also, I would rather see a shorter term with one renewal, say 4+4, rather than a straight 7 years, so that an under-whelming panelist can be non-renewed and thus replaced more quickly,<br>
<br>
Who decide who is "under-whelming" in this scenario?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>