[NCUC-EC] Durban Constituency Day

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On May 25 15:20, Edward Morris (edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu) wrote:

> If we do do another session like Beijing some of our members would
> be looking for impeachment clauses in our bylaws. As there are none, I
> believe beheading would be the next logical option.

I didn't think it was *quite* that bad...


On May 26 10:55, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote:

> Gee Ed, what am I supposed to do, hari kari?

I presume you mean harakiri, aka seppuku.
I don't think that'd be necessary.

> We had a meeting and talked about our effort to get people involved
> in doing stuff to make NCUC better. Sorry. We can avoid being so
> unbearably boring next time by simply leaving everything is.

Yes. We should talk about what we've done, even if some of it
is boring.

> The role of the NCUC, including the PC issue, is very important.
> This relates to the Bylaws as well. It would be nice to get this done.

Yes. A session on that, including talks about bylaws and changing them
to reflect reality (or vice versa...) would be useful.


On May 26 19:41, Edward Morris (edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu) wrote:

> Three additional ideas, two mine and the more substantive one a result of a
> brief conversation I've had with Wendy:
> 
> 1. How about the concept of each meeting talking about and agreeing on a
> special policy project that would be our proactive focus for the coming few
> months.

Cool, if we can come up with such a project and actually do it.

> 2. I'd like the opportunity to have a short discussion on membership
> admission.

Sounds like more of the boring organizatorial stuff - but yes, it is
important, something should be done about it, although whether it'd
be something to talk about in C-Day, I'm not so sure.

> 3.  Newcomers. Assuming we have new members approved I'd like to send each
> one a brief email inviting them to Durban and, if they aren't able to come,
> suggest they join remotely. I'd further like to suggest we tell them if
> they are able to attend in some form we'd appreciate it if they would
> introduce themselves and tell us a little about themselves and then at the
> start of the meeting have a bit of time set aside so we can do just that.

I love that idea! Might include members admitted earlier this year
in the set of newcomers, too.
 

On May 27 08:28, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote:

> The meeting should in fact spend at least a little time updating on
> the operational stuff we committed to do. If there's really going to
> be a new website to debut

Yes there will. Although we haven't done much on it since Beijing,
there isn't all that much that really needs to be done before
declaring it good enough to publish, and I'm willing to commit
getting it there by Durban. (I'll need some help from Wilson and
Brenden, but I trust they'll do their part. If necessary I'll
lock myself in a hotel room with Wilson in Durban and won't
come out until it's ready.)

> If there's anything to be said, albeit briefly, about progress in
> the other areas like outreach/member relations, that should happen
> too.

Not much on the technical side I fear, but something (merging in- &
outreach lists, possibly plans and/or any progress on member database).
Substantive side there I'll leave to Ed.

> And meetings planned. So the nuts and bolts stuff has to get some
> play, but given the overall lack of engagement in moving it forward
> this shouldn't be more than 1/3rd of the time.

Agreed.

> I think the Policy Committee issue and the larger roles question
> will need discussion. I believe we need to rethink inter alia given
> the realities of policy at the SG level.

Yes.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen