FAST-TRACK of Replace Committee Permanent Members with Infrastructure Members

	Myreader.co.uk
	uk news, chat and community
home \| control panel login \| archive \|

net

net

news.announce

news.config

news.management

news.moderation

providers

providers.aaisp

web.authoring

date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:18:27 +0100, group: uk.net.news.announce back

FAST-TRACK of Replace Committee Permanent Members with Infrastructure Members

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

FAST TRACK ANNOUNCEMENT	    Replace Committee Permanent Members with Infrastructure Members
=======================

In the procedures established for maintaining the uk.* hierarchy
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html> there are provisions, where
there is a consensus and the proposal is straightforward and
non-controversial, to proceed by the "fast-track" method, so as to avoid
the necessity for holding a full vote.

I have now received a request to fast-track the following proposal:

   Amend the UK Committee documents by replacing the Permanent Members
              with a new class of "Infrastructure Members".

This proposal will be activated no earlier than five days from the posting
of this notice (i.e. not before September 30th), unless there are
objections (of which six or more, or any one which seems to the Committee
to be well founded, shall suffice to halt the process).

Objections should be emailed directly to Control at
.

Objections will be resolved by the committee (committee@usenet.org.uk)

============================================================================



RATIONALE

The concept of "permanent member" carries much less relevance to UK Usenet
than it did when it was set up. The Committee feels that it would be better
expanded to cover any organisation involved, directly or indirectly, in the
provision of Usenet service. Therefore we are proposing replacing them by a
new class of Infrastructure Members.

There are two types of people who might be appointed as Infrastructure
Members. Firstly, there are people with direct knowledge of the issues of
providing Usenet service as opposed to simply being an end-user. They
wouldn't need to speak on behalf of, or represent, their organisation
within the committee, but they'd need to be willing and able to use their
influence within their organisation on behalf of the committee where
appropriate as well as being able to share their knowledge with the
committee. If they changed employer they could retain their membership,
though if their new position was not involved with Usenet then they would
have to resign.

The second type of person is an invited representative of an organisation,
an ISP, or a trade or similar association. Once nominated by that body they
would be members of themselves, and wouldn't be expected to speak formally
for the body, though of course they would be expected to use their
influence. The nominating body could withdraw their support, in which case
the member would have to resign unless they are eligible to remain in their
own right (after all, it's quite likely that the body would pick someone
involved in Usenet provision). The body would have no right to pick a
successor; the Committee could ask them to choose a replacement, or could
find a replacement on a different basis.

There is no "correct" division of places between these two types. The
Committee would be expected to judge on a case-by-case basis.

One of the reasons that the old "news admin" class of member was abolished
was that we could not get enough people willing to stand for election. This
is likely to remain the case; the people we are looking for will not
necessarily have had much involvement in Usenet politics. Therefore, as
with the present Permanent Members, we propose that the Committee
select candidates and make the initial approach, but use the existing
co-option process to provide the electorate with a veto.

In this rapidly changing industry, it is better for the Committee to
actively re-evaluate membership at regular intervals rather than waiting
for a member to resign - or simply drop out of contact. Equally, experience
with the existing Permanent membership shows us that nothing particularly
formal is necessary. Therefore we are proposing an annual review by the
Committee.

This proposal has been discussed by the Committee, none of whom objected to
the concept.

PROPOSAL

Make the following changes to the document titled "The UK Usenet Committee".

Under "Membership", delete item 1 ("Permanent Members") and replace with:

    1. Infrastructure Members

    The Committee shall include, as Infrastructure Members, up to 4
    people who are involved in the provision of Usenet infrastructure
    in the UK. Each Infrastructure Member shall be a person who plays a
    technical or managerial role in propagating Usenet through the UK,
    or in providing it to end users, or represents a company or
    organisation, or an association which includes such companies or
    organisations, that provides such services.

    Infrastructure Members are appointed by the Committee as individuals
    and not as nominees. As such, they do not lose eligibility simply
    because they have changed employer. However, they shall resign if for
    any reason they are no longer eligible for membership in this class
    (unless the break in eligibility is clearly temporary). Where they were
    appointed as a representative of a company or organisation, that
    company or organisation can withdraw their support (making the person
    no longer eligible on the basis of that representation) but are not
    automatically entitled to nominate a replacement.

    The term of service of an Infrastructure Member shall be indefinite.
    Each year during January the elected members of the Committee shall
    consider the current Infrastructure Members and may confirm their
    appointment for another year. If the appointment of an Infrastructure
    Member is not confirmed, their term shall end on the 31st January of
    that year. Former Infrastructure Members, provided they are otherwise
    eligible - are eligible for co-option at any future time.

In the first paragraph of "Co-opting Committee Members", replace
"retirement" by "retirement or resignation" and add after "annual election"
the words ", or any other cause".

In the fourth paragraph of "Co-opting Committee Members", replace
"the Open class" by "all classes".

Add a new paragraph at the end of "Co-opting Committee Members":

    When the Committee decide not to confirm the appointment of an
    Infrastructure Member, and if they have selected a replacement, the
    Committee SHOULD issue an "Intention to Co-Opt" as soon as possible.
    In this case, the resulting co-option takes effect on the 1st February
    if that is later than the end of the 7 day notice period, and the
    notice of intention SHALL state this.

Add a new section "Transition Arrangements":

    The initial Infrastructure Members shall be the Permanent Members as
    of the date that this amendment takes effect. Until the end of
    January 2008 they shall be deemed to be eligible to be Infrastructure
    Members irrespective of their actual situation.

END PROPOSAL

Proponent:
        Clive D.W. Feather 

- -- 
Chris Croughton ---------------------------------------------------------------
Control
Voice/Fax: +44 1296 331055                        Email: control@usenet.org.uk
Snail: 155 Long Meadow, Aylesbury, Bucks HP21 7EB

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.6-(GNU/Linux)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBRvgb+GOfGXkh8vHZAQIy0wP/YKYE+gjbvGu0tfEJZMz0WsZcCet9C3bB
BBSgHS4Dw/k984wMSUB2owbaf61rYNk3URzwGnTRiFNsMg681UgOkUOXNzhixhOs
ybTtOj+xzt7xJFz/gdzAZn+bK7aMsqagm7ncKI9j3niwp8TKxNTsHt/rREyi15YD
dDxqdb9ukf8=
=WOdl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:18:27 +0100 author: Chris Croughton as Control