[NCUC-EC] Formulation and Invitation to join the Task Force on NCUC Procedural Rules

Mon Jan 16 20:22:47 CET 2017

Hi all

Good. I think even if Maryan can not wrangle the "closed but open to
members" note, an open invite on list to all members and the
occasional reminder would be good.

Again, open drafting has many layers and procedures and, yes, there
can be transparency to the absurd but this would not be the case.

Even in any open meeting, those who are not a part of the Constituency
will have their thoughts weighted with much less weight than that of
those who already belong and are knowledgeable of the constituency's
works. Plus, drafting is a process not a meeting.

However, don't take this as trying to convince you anymore. I
understand this is a new effort, very valuable, and with a clear
direction as to where the EC wants to go. So open, not open, may it
happen and thrive.

Best,

Renata

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Tatiana Tropina
<tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 Ines. Thanks for reminding me that I forgot to mention in my email that
> we will achieve the desirable level of transparency by sharing the
> transcript, as Farzy said. Moreover, we can send an email with the summary
> of the meeting for those who have no time to listen to the recording to the
> NCUC mailing list, which has open archives.
> Cheers
> Tanya
>
> On 16 January 2017 at 19:11, hfaiedh ines <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think it should be open to NCUC members only and afterwards it will be
>> shared anyways. I think we need to hear more and focus mainly on our
>> constituency members' opinions .
>>
>> 2017-01-16 13:04 GMT-05:00 Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi Farzaneh,
>>> thanks. I agree with opening this meeting for the NCUC membership only,
>>> even we have to list it as a closed meeting to achieve this. I rather find
>>> it awkward that other constituencies or non-members will have a say in
>>> drafting our procedural rules. Drafting procedural rules is not an easy
>>> task, so increasing entropy and distraction won't get us focused. Am sorry,
>>> but the suggestion to open such a meeting for everyone gets transparency and
>>> openness to the level of absurd. We need the procedural rules to operate
>>> effectively, not to please any other constituencies, and it's our members
>>> who have to work on this and have a say on this.
>>> Warm regards
>>> Tatiana
>>>
>>> On 16 January 2017 at 18:58, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tapani
>>>>
>>>> Thanks. I have asked Maryam and she said she will see if they can add it
>>>> on the schedule as open to NCUC members.
>>>>
>>>> If not then it will be closed to other constituencies so and acs. Of
>>>> course the recording and transcript will be published on ncuc website and on
>>>> our wiki for everyone to see.
>>>>
>>>> Other ec members: please advise on keeping our procedural drafting
>>>> meetings amd consultations only open to ncuc members and not to other
>>>> constituencies, advisory committees etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 16 Jan 2017 12:33, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Farzaneh,
>>>>>
>>>>> If I've understood correctly, you can't exclude other constituencies
>>>>> if you call it open meeting. And the only other option is closed.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the past we have, for example, called EC meetings closed but then
>>>>> announced all of our members will be welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess you could also make a meeting open and simply ignore what
>>>>> non-members say, although that'd be somewhat awkward, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:46:59AM -0500, farzaneh badii
>>>>> (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Renata
>>>>> >
>>>>> > what do you mean by we will hold closed meetings? We will hold
>>>>> > meetings
>>>>> > open to all ncuc members.  Naturally we won't allow people from other
>>>>> > consituencies and stakeholder groups who are not ncuc members to
>>>>> > express
>>>>> > their opinion on what procedural rules ncuc should function on.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Since I don't believe the meeting held with ncuc members is closed I
>>>>> > wouldn't add your suggestion.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Farzaneh
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 16 Jan 2017 10:36, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <raquino at gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On 3 I'd add
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "We will hold closed meetings..."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I've also taken a look at my workload and won't be joining the TF but
>>>>> > will participate as EC responsibility.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Renata
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM, farzaneh badii
>>>>> > <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > > I drafted the below to send to the NCUC members about procedural
>>>>> > > rules
>>>>> > task
>>>>> > > force. Let me know if it's ok and if you agree with the process.I'd
>>>>> > > like
>>>>> > to
>>>>> > > announce on list no later than Tuesday. We can either follow the
>>>>> > > process I
>>>>> > > am recommending below or leave it to the task force to come up with
>>>>> > > a
>>>>> > > process of how to come up with the procedural rule!
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Dear NCUC Members,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > This is to  announce the formulation of the task force on NCUC
>>>>> > > procedural
>>>>> > > rules. You are invited to join this task force. It will commence
>>>>> > > its work
>>>>> > > next week.The leader of the task force is Anna Loup.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Some background and the process:
>>>>> > > The executive committee is in charge of issuing procedural rules
>>>>> > > for
>>>>> > various
>>>>> > > functions of NCUC. We have decided to convene this task force which
>>>>> > includes
>>>>> > > the EC and interested members as well in order to draft the
>>>>> > > procedural
>>>>> > > rules. The process of drafting and approval of the procedural rules
>>>>> > > is as
>>>>> > > follows:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > 1. The task force drafts the procedural rules
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > 2. The procedural rules will be sent to the members for comments
>>>>> > > and
>>>>> > > changes.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > 3. These comments and changes will be resolved by the task force
>>>>> > > and the
>>>>> > EC.
>>>>> > > We will hold meetings with the members to resolve the issues, and
>>>>> > > will
>>>>> > lead
>>>>> > > discussions on the mailing list.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > 4. After the resolution of the comments, the document will then be
>>>>> > > sent
>>>>> > for
>>>>> > > final comments to the members,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > 5.  After the final comments are resolved, the EC will deliberate
>>>>> > > on its
>>>>> > > approval.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > The task force is open to all of the NCUC members. You can either
>>>>> > > be an
>>>>> > > active member or an observer. You can join the task force at any
>>>>> > > time but
>>>>> > we
>>>>> > > will start our work by next week.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > The following document identifies those areas that need procedural
>>>>> > > rules .
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Pg0PruKjtNNgnTZmrZ8UpaflzFiaUH
>>>>> > RWIEbjrvCH5A/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > If you think there are other issues that should be addressed please
>>>>> > > feel
>>>>> > > free to insert your comments.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Best
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > Farzaneh
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>