Re: [council] Some initial thoughts on Working Groups

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for reading and commenting so quickly.

Some quick responses.

On 6 Mar 2008, at 11:06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I definitely think that having a Council liaison on every WG is a good
> idea and think that where possible two liaisons may be good,  
> especially
> in WGs that may last for a considerable length of time, thereby
> providing a backup liaison.
I agree.  the reason I worded it as I did "at least one" is that there  
may be cases where the scpe is narow enough or the milestones short  
enough that this may not be necessary.  As I have probably made clear  
various times in the past I am personally very much in favor of co- 
chaired leadership for precisely the reaon you give.  And for the  
additional reason that having co-chairs gives chairs greater latitude  
in participation as it allows for one co-chair to stand aside on an  
issue he or she cares about, leaving the rough consensus call to the  
other co-chair.
> think there are a couple of words missing in the following in the
> first paragraph after the list of bullets on page 2: "These rules also
> do specify any guidelines for the relationship between the GNSO, the
> GNSO Council and the WGs. As it stands, these rules may not a  
> sufficient
> recipe for a WG as it can leave a WG either floundering without  
> recourse
> or subject it to undue influence from the GNSO council."   Is there a
> 'not' missing in the first sentence and a 'be' missing in the second
> sentence?
Yes.  Thank you.

Corrected version attached.

a.

Attachment: working-groups-01.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document