Re: [alac] Minimum requirements for participation
- To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] Minimum requirements for participation
- From: Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:20:45 +0900
Thanks Vittorio for putting this in front of us.
Here's my short comments.
At 14:30 05/08/04 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
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
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
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
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
I might be too strong, but to stimulate reactions, we need to