[NCUC-EC] Interim Asian Representative

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Aug 05 08:41, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote:

> On Jul 30, 2013, at 2:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
> 
> > I would suggest convening an email meeting:
> > Everybody who agrees with the proposal post a statement
> > to that effect ("+1" will do), I'll write minutes
> > documenting the decision as an EC meeting -
> > shouldn't take more than a day (or an hour if everybody
> > is online).
> 
> Yes, it shouldn't take more than a day. But as you see, it does.
> And this is why the EC has never in its history followed the Tapani
> Rules and required that every decision involve a formal response
> from each EC member.

> So right now three of us have bothered to reply approving the
> appointments of Peter and Rafik. We need one more to declare quorum
> and make it official

We do? As we don't have explicit rules for quorum in our bylaws, I
should think a simple majority, in this case three out of five, you,
me and Wilson, should suffice. And looking at my mailbox it took one
hour and 7 minutes to get that.

Even with full EC it could be agreed that chair plus two others
are sufficient for quorum (or four without chair).

> (of course we don't have much in the way formalized rules about
> voting since it was never the intention of previous ECs to vote on
> everything, but I presume we can live with a simple majority.

There's no need to _vote_ on everything, but if the EC is to
make decisions, it should be clear how it is done.
A consensus call, i.e., "decided unless someone objects"
procedure could work in many cases - but even then I'd
want such decisions explicitly documented.
And of course some things Chair can decide alone.

I am not so concerned about what particular process we use
to make decisions, as long as the decisions are made
and documented clearly, so that is is easy to see
who decided what and when.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen