NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:46:30 +0300
Content-Type:
multipart/signed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (620 bytes) , signature.asc (186 bytes)
On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 08:31:10AM +0300, Avri Doria ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> The NCSG-Executive Committee can define specific processes for each
> type of decision the PC makes, if it so desires.

Yes. And I think it should, even if the processes themselves
don't need to be too rigid or formal, depending on the type
of decision of course, but they should be defined and
documented.

> These processes need to be reviewed by the members. At this point
> there are not special processes defined for the PC other than what
> the charter defined, i.e. rough consensus.

Yes. And that is a bit too vague for my taste.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


ATOM RSS1 RSS2