[NCUC-EC] Interim Asian Representative

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Aug 05 09:37, Edward Morris (edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu) wrote:

> 1. I had already indicated my support for both Rafik and Peter, on list. I
> believe I was the first person to support Rafik once he was proposed and as
> I recruited both Peter and Patrick to run for the EC position, and
> indicated on list that I was fine with either, I felt that was sufficient,
> in the  absence of a formal call for a vote with a time limit for a
> response, to deal with the matter. Was there a call for an email meeting
> that I missed ( my apologies for not responding if there was)?

I believe Bill intended this to be such:

http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2013-July/000732.html

There's no time limit though.

> count me in as supporting a system with more formality, greater
> transparency and increased accountability.

It also makes things easier for ourselves, when we can easily
see what we've decided before without having to wade through
voluminous email archives.
 
> We appear to be having some teething problems on the road to greater
> openness that I suggest could be fixed by more formality, not less.

Yes. No point in going too far with it, but clearly documenting
decisions as such and collecting them to a central location would
be a good thing, IMHO.

> I'd suggest, in the future, formal email meetings be clearly
> announced and labeled as such and that calls for votes also be
> labeled as such with a defined time limit for a response.
 
Sounds good to me.

> Won't it be great to someday have bylaws combined with operating procedures
> that clearly define these procedures? Isn't it great that by trying to
> normalise things a bit now we're discovering issues that we can deal with
> in the bylaws rewrite?

Yes. Haggling over these things here now may feel annoying but it
can prove very useful in the bylaws revision process.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen