The email has been sent to the ALAC Internal list, which does not have a public archive. It has therefore been reproduced here.
Jacqueline A. Morris jam at jacquelinemorris.com
Sun Nov 2 09:36:37 EST 2008
- Previous message: ALAC-Internal text from the Working Group on Accountability
- Next message: ALAC-Internal Working Group on AtLarge Review - 8 AM, Holiday Inn?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I would suggest that the bit at the end include:
develop clear job descriptions for each role (including liaisons) that
are approved by consensus.
Jacqueline
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> FYI, I will incorporate this into the draft and post a Rev2 version,
> probably overnight.
> On 02/11/2008 16:14, "Izumi Aizu" <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>> As rough consensus, not in precise language:
>> 21.10
>> In case an ALAC member or Liaison is approaching to fail to meet the
>> requirements, the community should attempt to resolve the problem in
>> an appropriate manner. If this community approach does not work, the
>> Chair will contact the person directly and discuss the matter.
>> IF these attempts still do not work, the Chair will consult with RALO
>> or NomCom that selected the person for possible actions. In the
>> extreme case, the Chair, in consultation with other ALAC members, will
>> privately encourage the member to resign. If this does not happen by
>> 14 (fourteen) days from that communication, the Chair formally notify
>> the entity responsible for appointing the member, and a message MAY be
>> copied to the public ALAC list, and ask that the appointment is
>> immediately reconsidered.
>> Liaisons' criteria should also be defined
>> We also agreed that a clear job description should be given to the new
>> ALAC members
>> and Liaisons so that they can understand the expected standard of
>> performance and amount of commitment.
