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.
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
FYI, I will incorporate this into the draft and post a Rev2 version,
On 02/11/2008 16:14, "Izumi Aizu" <iza at anr.org> wrote:
As rough consensus, not in precise language:
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
Liaisons' criteria should also be defined
We also agreed that a clear job description should be given to the new
and Liaisons so that they can understand the expected standard of
performance and amount of commitment.