Hello All: My comments are in line below.
Regards, Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-nanog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Abley > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:14 PM > To: nanog-futures Futures > Subject: proposed NANOG charter amendments > > Hi all, > > The NANOG SC is considering two proposals to modify the NANOG > charter. The SC would like to hear feedback from the community on > these, to help us form the precise text that will appear on the > ballot for people to vote on in New Mexico. > > The following were kindly collated and drafted by Steve Gibbard, one > of the original authors of the NANOG charter. Many thanks to Steve > for his continued assistance with this. > > > Proposal 1: > > > > Shall the chair of the Mailing List Panel also serve as a non- > > voting member of the Steering Committee? > > > > Wording: > > > > Add the following as the final paragraph of section 7.1.2 of the > > NANOG Charter: > > > > "The Chair of the Mailing List Panel will serve ex-officio (without > > a vote) on the Steering Committee, in order to facilitate > > communication among the two groups." Why not just "The Chair of the Mailing List Panel will serve ex-officio (without a vote) on the Steering Committee." > > Proposal 2: > > > > Shall program committee members be permitted to skip rating > > presentation proposals that do not fall into their areas of > expertise? > > > > Wording: > > > > Change the third paragraph of Section 8.3.2 as follows: > > > > Old version: "Each member of the Program Committee must review all > > presentations submitted for each meeting. The Chair may excuse a > > member from one meeting's review cycle due to extenuating > > circumstances, but if a member misses two meetings in a row, he or > > she may be removed from the committee." > > > > New version: "Each member of the Program Committee must review all > > presentations submitted for each meeting and rate those > > presentations which fall into their areas of expertise. The Chair > > may excuse a member from one meeting's review cycle due to > > extenuating circumstances, but if a member misses two meetings in a > > row, he or she may be removed from the committee." > It seems like you're talking about two totally different things here, punitive actions for missing meetings and requirements for PC Members to audit presentations. Unless it's really worth defining both separately I would scratch the whole thing. If you need to define punitive actions, why not just say "a simple majority may take action to remove a Program Committee Member for cause." The first sentence, taken alone, could be listed as a portion of PC Members assigned duties (if such a thing exists). Regards, Mike
