2nd RFD: 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, 29 Oct 2007 18:26:52 +0000, group: uk.net.news.announce back

2nd RFD: Replace Committee Permanent Members with Infrastructure Members

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

                    2ND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)

This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the following changes
in the uk.* Usenet hierarchy:

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

Changes from previous RFD:

The proposed wording changes have been reordered slightly so as to improve
the consistency of the resulting document.

The only significant and relevant issue raised during discussion of the
first RFD was the name for the new class of members. Therefore it is now
intended to offer two alternative terms at voting time if a consensus does
not emerge during discussion. However, it is hoped that such a consensus
will emerge.




      *** ALL DISCUSSION MUST TAKE PLACE IN UK.NET.NEWS.MANAGEMENT ***

This is not a Call for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time.
Further procedural details are given below.

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 Appointed Members or Infrastructure Members.

There are two types of people who might be appointed as Appointed or
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".

In the following proposal, the term "<new class>" will be replaced by
either "Appointed" or "Infrastructure" depending on the results of
discussion or any subsequent vote.

Under "Control", amend item 5 by changing "elected or permanent" to
"Elected or <new class>".

Under "Membership", delete item 1 ("Permanent Members"), renumber item 2
("Open Members") as item 1, and insert a new item 2 after it:

    2. <new class> Members

    The Committee shall include, as <new class> Members, up to 4
    people who are involved in the provision of Usenet infrastructure
    in the UK. Each <new class> 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.

    <new class> 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 <new class> Member shall be indefinite.
    Each year during January the elected members of the Committee shall
    consider the current <new class> Members and may confirm their
    appointment for another year. If the appointment of an <new class>
    Member is not confirmed, their term shall end on the 31st January of
    that year. Former <new class> 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
    <new class> 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" at the end of the document:

    The initial <new class> 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 <new class>
    Members irrespective of their actual situation.

END PROPOSAL

PROCEDURE:

This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes.  In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposal should be raised
and resolved.  The discussion period will continue for a minimum of 10
days, starting from when this RFD is posted to uk.net.news.announce
(i.e. until November 9th) after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be
posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion warrants it.
Alternatively, the proposal may proceed by the fast-track method.  Please
do not attempt to vote until this happens.

This RFD attempts to comply fully with the "Guidelines for Group Creation
within the UK Hierarchy" as published regularly in uk.net.news.announce
and is available from http://www.usenet.org.uk/guidelines.html (the UK
Usenet website).  Please refer to this document if you have any questions
about the process.

DISTRIBUTION:

This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
        uk.net.news.announce
        uk.net.news.management
        uk.net.news.config

Proponent:
        Clive D.W. Feather 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.5-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBRyYmQmOfGXkh8vHZAQIt3wP+PaMnTH2xBI5VVwUSRDFzCCJiZosEv73E
J/a7V0bGwXKr9rCbJwgrmKv7dUgrXzQWy7gOZhiCg0mBMCPOPB544GqTlRuTHq+I
EuWmGoMlV/XwAugy/BkUf3bQV3q+Oz+2REb7Ud82/x4b4gZxMis51VZHuVan3xhc
nUvDWF7Bswo=
=y+hl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:26:52 +0000 author: Clive D.W. Feather