[NCSG-EC] Next EC call on Friday at 2000?

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Jan 17 08:34, Zalnieriute, Monika (Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu) wrote:

> To save time, maybe we can all review and indicate our
> approvals/remarks in advance, and simply proceed to other items of
> the agenda unless there are some outstanding applications that must
> be considered over the call? It would be much more productive.

It would. We have tried to do that before though without much
success, but we can keep trying.

> It would be good if Maryam or Tapani could share a link with those
> applications.

Maryam, let us know when you have the applications ready for us.
(I presume the link will be same as before; posting it on a public
list is probably not good idea, though. Maryam, please send it
to all EC members directly when you're ready. Thank you.)

In the (hopefully very near) future it will be easier, one key feature
of the new member database setup is that new applications will
automatically be visible to EC members without requiring manual
processing by Maryam.

> I suggest some items for the agenda:

> 1. Establishing clear time-windows for response by the EC via e-mail
> to Chairs questions.

That is a bit difficult to do in general, as the time available
is often externally imposed. If I'm told I need to decide something
by day after tomorrow, I can't do better than notify the EC at
that point and consider comments from those who happen to be able
to react quickly - although obviously later comments can be taken
as after-the-fact criticism.

In such situations there can of course be no obligation on the part of
EC members to respond at all. That would only be the case when a
formal EC decision is required.

In particular in case of approving (or not) new members, in past EC's
it's been convention that one week, 7 days, is the time those who
weren't present in a meeting can express their position. If no
response is received within that time, approval has been assumed. I
don't remember if we've had to resort to that, I think I've always
gotten response in time from all.

But we could agree on such a limit for any formal EC decisions.
Perhaps two weeks would be sufficient time for people to respond
somehow, at least by asking for more time if the issue is difficult.
Longer time would also be appropriate in case of vacations &c,
if people agree to notify the Chair of such in advance.
How does that sound?

For other questions, where EC's opinion is solicited but
no formal decision is required, no hard limit makes sense.
Unless you would prefer Chair would not ask EC at all when
there isn't enough time before a decision has to be made.

An informal agreement on best-effort basis is of course
possible. In general I think one week would be a reasonable
amount of time, longer than that would be impractical so
often it'd probably become a dead letter immediately.
I could try to keep to that whenever the deadline is
mine to decide.

> 2. Deciding and making clear over what matters EC vote is always
> required

That is not something we can formally decide: EC cannot decide
to expand its own powers, that would require changing the Charter.
And as it is, our Charter is fairly Chair-centric, very few
things require formal decision by the EC.

Clarification is another matter, and of course informal agreements on
when and how Chair should solicit EC opinion can be made.

In general documenting procedures and processes used by
the Chair and the EC would definitely be a good thing.
It is not be a small undertaking, however.

We have already started with the member removal procedure.
Thanks to Robin that has been progressing well, I expect
we'll be ready to send a proposal to membership for evaluation
pretty soon.

There are lots of other processes, mostly simpler and easier, that
should be written down and formalized as well. I hope to get at least
a few done this year - with some effort and a bit of luck we might
even come up with a fairly comprehensive set.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen