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

Tue Jan 17 19:19:17 CET 2017

Hello

Since I have not received any other feedback or response I am going to
announce the formulation of this task force and invite the members to join.

Best

Farzaneh

Farzaneh

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20170117/020e8d0e/attachment.html>