[Ec-ncuc] NCUC-EC Listserv

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Dec 14 10:50, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote:

> 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.

So it seems. That suggests that either EC hasn't done anything much
(perhaps all the work has been done by chair & secretary alone?)
or it's been done in other fora.

Incidentally, I was a bit surprised to find the archives
are world-readable. Not that I can see anything particularly
sensitive there, but I would imagine there might be issues
we'd rather discuss a bit privately (say, should it ever
be necessary to actually debate about the eligibility
of some applicant, there might be concerns that are
somewhat sensitive).
But I'm fine with 100% transparency, if that's our policy.

> 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.

Perhaps. For example, I would find it useful if there were
minutes of the meetings in some easy-to-find location,
rather than just transcripts buried in the mailing list archives
(short though they are, digging out what's been decided is a bit
burdensome).

> 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.

Yes. Discussions are easier when there are few people who know each
other. Also, if we'd want to use the list to debate about something
that's up to the EC to decide, it gets confusing ?f there are many
non-EC members present; a few regulars like Milton and Robin would
be no problem, but much more could be.
(I understand actual decisions would not be made on the list
but on teleconferences or physical meetings, but even
pre-meeting discussions on the list would change their nature
if there're many non-EC-members present.)

> On the other hand, we'd be missing helpful inputs and
> amusements from colleagues.

That's true as well.

> 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.

That could work. But if they start outnumbering the actual EC,
the function of the list becomes a bit fuzzy.

> Particularly as long as we don't have the Policy Committee our
> charter calls for

I was wondering about that...

> 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

Yes. And it might not be an easy judgement to make.

> 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.

... at which point calling it "EC list" becomes a bit strange,
and at least occasionally traffic might become excessive.

One alternative would be allowing listen-only subscription
to everybody, with only EC members and possibly a few
others (as per option 2) with posting rights.

I'm still too new here to have a strong opinion on which
alternative would be best, but elsewhere I've had best
experiences with smaller lists (as in your option 1).

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen