[alac] Process for At Large Structure application review
Dear all,
I would like to push you a little to discuss about the process for
reviewing and approving/rejecting At Large Structure applications.
Even if, of course, I will not participate in the review or vote for
the application I sent a couple of weeks ago, I think that the
Committee has to set up a standard process as soon as possible, so to
be able to respond promptly to this application and to others that may
come in the next weeks. There's nothing worse than conducting outreach
to encourage organizations to apply, and then failing to address the
applications in reasonable time.
I will just attach a first list of issues to start the discussion:
- How should applications be reviewed? How and to what extent should
assertions on membership and characteristics of the organization be
verified? Should we require and examine Bylaws and other documentation
(what about language issues)?
- Who should conduct this review? Should it be done on the main list,
or should the Committee appoint a reviewer or a review group for each
application, that would then discuss with the applicant and then
submit a short explanation to the Committee? Or should this be done by
staff? How much time should be allowed for the review? Should the
review include a recommendation?
- How do we vote on the application? Do we need a formal call for
votes, and how much time should be allowed to cast votes? Should our
votes be public or private? (By the way - does the "2/3 vote of all
the members", as required by the Bylaws, mean that you need 10 "yes"
to approve, or 2/3 of those not abstaining?)
Please express your opinions and/or complete the list.
--
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------