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

["Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is also true that having a simple mechanism for Time Frames and Proxies
is useful.
I think we are all agree in settle a simple and effective mechanism of
internal procedures.

Thomas, would you be comfortable in  simplifying your draft deleting issues
concerning Staff and Liasons interaction and the process of documentation ?
We can agree very fast on Officers and Voting, proxies and time frame so
let's do that.

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).

Best Regards,

Sebastian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Esther Dyson" <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Sebastian Ricciardi"
<sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 9:46 AM
Subject: [alac] Re: [alac-admin] Internal Procedures


> Moving this back to the public list -- there's no need to have this
> discussion on the private one....
>
> The process informally described by Vittorio is the way in which
> "votes" are supposed to happen.  As far as document adoption is
> concerned, three additional details are necessary (which were all
> contained in the procedures draft):
>
> - The proposed procedures include the option to go for a "no
>   objections" approach, and time lines and thresholds for that
>   approach are defined.
>
>   (1/3 of the committee members' objections within two days stop
>   publication.)
>
> - Some rough time frames for votes are proposed.
>
> - There's the notion of proxies, when people are absent.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2003-04-09 07:52:00 -0400, Esther Dyson wrote:
> > From: Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Sebastian Ricciardi <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > ALAC private <alac-admin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 07:52:00 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [alac-admin] Internal Procedures
> > Envelope-to: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Delivery-date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 13:57:55 +0200
> > X-No-Spam: whitelist
> >
> > I think the formal process in this paragraph below  is sufficient for
> > now.  You are right that we will need to make it slightly more specific
> > later on - but I do think we should wait for the new members to do so.
> >
> > Esther
> >
> > So if we don't have a "formal" process for approvals of documents
> > (where "formal", in the end, just means sending an e-mail to the list
> > that says "it's ok for me", so I think that it *is* actually a simple
> > mechanism) we risk to spend time on process discussions and create
> > attritions each time we have to produce something. (Also consider that
> > we are now a small group of people who like each other... but in the
> > future the ALAC may become bigger and more controversial.)
> >
> >
> > At 02:16 AM 4/9/2003, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > >On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:46:30 -0300, you wrote:
> > >
> > >>I think Esther has a point here. Let's make simple mechanisms that
help us
> > >>to perform our job without problems, and leave the details for the
> > >>definitive members.
> > >
> > >My main reason to have a set of written procedures once for all is to
> > >avoid repeated discussions on process. When we sent out the WHOIS
> > >statement, there was some significant discussion up to the last minute
> > >on whether it was correct to send that out as a committee statement,
> > >or whether there had not been enough discussion and show of support
> > >for it so that it should be sent as a personal contribution. In the
> > >end, I took the responsibility to say "yes, this reflects the views of
> > >the majority of the committee", and it's ok, I can do it and I think
> > >it was the right evaluation of the wishes of the committee :) but it
> > >would be better for everyone if there was a clearer way to demonstrate
> > >whether there is support for something or not, so that it cannot be
> > >attacked (not just internally, but especially from the outside of the
> > >committee - think at Danny Younger challenging the validity of our
> > >documents...). (My job as a Chair is not to take decisions in place of
> > >the Committee - it is to facilitate consensus and to push for things
> > >to be actually done.)
> > >
> > >So if we don't have a "formal" process for approvals of documents
> > >(where "formal", in the end, just means sending an e-mail to the list
> > >that says "it's ok for me", so I think that it *is* actually a simple
> > >mechanism) we risk to spend time on process discussions and create
> > >attritions each time we have to produce something. (Also consider that
> > >we are now a small group of people who like each other... but in the
> > >future the ALAC may become bigger and more controversial.)
> > >--
> > >vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> > >-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > Esther Dyson                    Always make new mistakes!
> > chairman, EDventure Holdings
> > writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
> > edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
> > 104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
> > New York, NY 10011 USA
> > http://www.edventure.com
> >
> > The conversation continues..... at
> > http://www.edventure.com/conversation/
> >
> > Release 1.0 - the first good look
> > at technology that matters
> >
> >
>
>