Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Your feedback requested - section 3.3. Process Integrity

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 4 May 2010, at 14:37, Marika Konings wrote:

> 3.3. Process Integrity
> 
> WGs are encouraged to focus and tailor their work efforts to achieve the 
> identified goals of the Charter. While minimum attendance and participation 
> requirements are not explicitly recommended, a Chair is expected, as outlined 
> above, to take the necessary measures to ensure that all WG members have an 
> opportunity to provide their input on issues and decisions. WG members should 
> be mindful that, once input/comment periods have been closed, discussions or 
> decisions should not be resurrected unless there is group consensus that the 
> issue should be revisited in light of new information that has been 
> introduced. 
> 
> Members should be encouraged to consider whether, if they cannot participate 
> faithfully in the WG’s process (e.g. attending meetings, providing input, 
> monitoring discussions), they should formally withdraw. It should be noted 
> that there are no rules or requirements as to what constitutes sufficient or 
> adequate ‘participation’; this is an assessment that each WG member should 
> make individually. 
> 
> Comments
> 
> GD: In the first paragraph of Section 3.3, the document discusses the 
> re-opening of deliberations once a topic has been closed.  In our opinion, 
> this is an area that repeatedly causes delay and frustration in working 
> groups.  We recommend the PPSC WG-WT develop some additional guidance in this 
> area, particularly with respect to the Chair’s ability to declare a topic 
> formally “closed,” and under what conditions the working group might revive 
> it. This may also address the related problem when a long-absent working 
> group member re-joins the working group and wishes to re-open previous topics.

this is cover in 6.1.3.  if anything add a note to there that in addition to 
reviewing stuff being required for new members it be required for any member 
rejoining after a long absence.  but we should not make a religion out of this. 
 even someone who attends regularly and pays attention can forget an issues was 
covered previously.  the chair should be able to remind everyone of what the 
conclusion as and why and then recommend that the person go read the archives.

with ever comment I worry about turning these guidelines into a strict code of 
laws.

No topic can ever be formally closed - what has to happen is that there has to 
be something to point to where all the info that came before is covered and all 
arguments are covered.  and if a person has a new argument, then the issue has 
to be reviewed at the right time.  wanting the chair to be able to lock 
something down not only excludes new information but it creates a capture 
mechanism.
a.