Re: [alac] Re: [alac-admin] Internal Procedures

[Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2003-04-09 10:45:07 -0300, Sebastian Ricciardi wrote:

> Thomas, would you be comfortable in simplifying your draft
> deleting issues concerning Staff and Liasons interaction and the

Can live with that.

> process of documentation ? We can agree very fast on Officers and
> Voting, proxies and time frame so let's do that.

I'm not sure what precisely you want me to remove from the
documentation process.  Key elements:

- Documents have owners, and owners have some responsibility.  I.e.,
  please don't throw a draft at the committee and expect others to
  take over.

- Objections should come with a reasoning.  That's really just good
  manners and common sense.  Objections without reasoning are
  useless when the aim is to produce a good document.

- There is a choice between a quick "no objection" process (when
  chair doesn't expect contention) and a more time-consuming vote
  (when chair expects some contention) for the adoption of a
  document.

- There are some basic timelines.

Which of these should be removed, in your opinion?

> If you think the procedures should be more restrictive, I don't
> have a problem to add more issues as long as they do not disturb
> job fluency (Notify the comitee when a member ask for staff help
> in editing a document is really a pain in the ass - excuse my
> french).

You are reading too much into this.  (Which may mean that I should
revise the language.)

What's meant by that particular text is that a draft from staff
should come with some brief note like "xyz asked me to prepare
this", or "here's what I propose".  That's really just basic
transparency, and, by the way, something which already works quite
nicely with the latest drafting done by Denise.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                 <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>