Things have been quite in the last few days regarding the draft RC operating procedures.
I am guessing the quite means we are all fairly comfortable with the draft, so I figure this is
a good time to summarize the discussions and changes, and port them to the working draft.
The following 8 topics have been addressed:
A. "Published"
Douglas voiced a concern about the word "published" being inserted into the RC appointment
text. The text is word for word out of the charter, but with an additional requirement that the
method be "published".
Douglas was concerned that this would require a definition for published, and additional
procedures and complexity.
Nurani doesn't think it is complicated or burdensome, and supports transparency.
Jason notes that the additional burden is on the RIRs, they have to publish their method.
Also, there is precedent for this with the NRO NC removal.
B. "Of the community"
Douglas suggests the text "The two community appointees should be of the community and
have the support of the community." is not needed. "Community Appointees" already suggests this.
Nurani + Jason suggest it is not entirely clear and the added text ensures there is no confusion.
C. "Term length"
Douglas suggested that a 3 year term is directly in conflict with the charter.
Nurani agreed, text now reflects that the RIRs decide.
Jason added an additional "published" to the text.
D. "Vice chair suggestions"
Douglas felt "suggestions" was too informal.
Jason suggested interest
E. "Review process date"
Douglas felt per our charter, the date must come from the EC.
Changes have been suggested.
F. "Performance Matrix"
Douglas had concerns about giving the performance matrix a specific
name which could be limiting.
Jason suggested "performance matrix" was not intended to be restrictive, but set the
minimum of what the RIR would provide.
Nurani suggested that we did not prescribe the name, and we are not particularly
attached to it.
G. "prescriptive voting procedures"
Douglas was concerned that the voting procedures were too prescriptive.
Simplified text has been suggested.
H. "Procedural changes"
Douglas did not want someone to simply conclude there was consensus
without holding a vote. New text has been suggested.
I have ported the changes over to the working draft as well.
What is the draft vs the working draft?
The draft was the text we were attempting to adopt at our last meeting.
The working draft incorporates some changes based on the discussion
of our last meeting, and some re-writing that occurred in our work room.
Primarily this consists of two things 1. stuff about community engagement
2. a preamble section 0 discussiong purpose.
As discussion has wound down, I would like to recomend we shift to a discussion of the working draft.
___Jason