Re: [alac] Minimum requirements for participation

[Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Vittorio for putting this in front of us.

Here's my short comments.

At 14:30 05/08/04 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> All,
>
> in Luxembourg, I was tasked to make a proposal to the Committee about
> how to set minimum requirements for participation by ALAC members.
>
> The purpose would be to allow for the replacement of members if they
> fail to meet a minimum level of activity, so to be able to replace them
> with new individuals, hopefully more able to devote time to the
> Committee.
>
> I think that (apart from participation in liaisoning / task forces /
> communications, which is left to each person's good will) the basic
> "duties" of a Committee member should be:


> 1. reading the ALAC-related mailing lists

Though I agree this is "minimam" requirement, but just "reading" sounds
short of "participation". It is too soft I think.

"Reading and posting comments when necesarry" - something like that.

> 2. participating in ALS votes

Taking part of due digiligence for regoinal ALS applicants?

> 3. participating in conference calls
> 4. participating in physical meetings

> While 1. is hardly measurable, the other three criteria could be
> quantified.
>
> My idea would be that the minimum requirements could be:
> - explicitly casting a vote (including abstention, of course) in at
> least 2/3 of the ALS votes

In theory, this should be ALL, not 2/3, I think, if we allow abstention.

> - participating in at least 1/3 of the conf calls
> - participating in at least one physical meeting per year
>
> I think that 9 or 12 months is a reasonable span of time to measure
> participation - less than that would be a problem in case of special
> periods in private life / daytime jobs, more would not be effective.

To me, 6 to 9 months be enough. IF there is special circumstances,
when s/he knows it difficult to participate in advance, either s/he
should acknolwdget, or step down. Given the current situation, I think
we do not have much luxury in wasting our time and energy.



> Does this sound acceptable?
>
> If yes, there is another question: should these requirements be written
> down in detail in the Bylaws, or should we just ask for a generic
> sentence meaning "the Committee may set minimum requirements for
> participation, members failing to abide with them shall decay and be
> replaced"?

I thinks this should be outisde the Bylaws, but make explicit
as our "Internal Code" just like other procedures. AND, it will be
much better to give it to NomCom and include in the announcement
for the Call, AND, give it to the newly appointed members when
they start to participate. If this is an "obligation", better inform
it clearly.

I might be too strong, but to stimulate reactions, we need to
think twice.

thanks,

izumi