[Ec-ncuc] NCUC-EC Listserv

[William Drake]

Hi Nuno et al

On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Nuno Garcia wrote:

> Thank you for this extra-bonus :)

Good to have your thoughts...
> 
> on many organizations, the previous elected step down the time the new ones step in, so I assumed that as the new EC was stepping in, we should be stepping out.
> 
> It turns out that there is a period where we can share ideas toghether and I think we should just reap the opportunity to do that.

As is evidenced by the archive http://mailman.ctyme.com/pipermail/ec-ncuc/ this list does not have a long history of particularly vibrant activity. I suppose that's because we've generally discussed substantive policy issues in other spaces whereas the EC is supposed to be more organizational managerial.  But one also could argue that there's been less organizational management going on than desirable.  Sure, NCUC doesn't need to have a big ole layer of EC bureaucracy to operate, but the EC could be more value-adding in terms of the kinds of functional tasks we've discussed previously.  Hopefully we can take it up a notch in the year to come.

http://mailman.ctyme.com/roster/ec-ncuc shows 11 subscribers at the moment---the new EC, the just retired one, and the ubiquitous Milton.  I guess there are at least options for going forward:

1.  Limit the list to the current EC, plus I would think the NCSG chair (not like Robin needs more lists to read, but it'd save some coordination cycles etc).  On the one hand, small and tight could promote focused discussion and decision making without too much traffic.  On the other hand, we'd be missing helpful inputs and amusements from colleagues.

2.  Expand the list to include (on an opt in basis?) people who are currently leading on other constituency functions, e.g. our reps on the NCSG committees and/or UC-originated Councilors.  Particularly as long as we don't have the Policy Committee our charter calls for (to be discussed in yet another thread to come), it might be useful to have more two-way coordination between the EC and others who sustain the constituency's activities and presence.  Of course, getting the balance right would be a matter of using some judgement, e.g. the EC doesn't need to hear the details of each Council meeting or NCSG EC debate on applicants any more than Councilors and others need to hear us discuss the details of maintaining the member data base or whatever.

3.  Expand the list to include opting in by folks with no current specific responsibility, e.g. interested former EC members or even regular members.

Or some mix of 2 or 3?and obviously, when it comes to making decisions within its remit, it'd just be the current EC's responsibility.

Thoughts?

Best,

Bill