Subject: Re: DASC membership
From: John Willis (john.willis@ftlsys.com)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 04:50:14 PDT
Mac and Evan,
Since the issue of DASC membership is suddenly raised
as a potentially material issue, Mac's previous email
raises several important procedural questions regarding
administration of DASC membership.
I believe IEEE offered to handle this administrative
issue several years ago as part of their SA effort and
the offer was qcuikly accepted. Previously it was
handled directly by DASC or a subcontractor. When the
membership rules were initially set, contents of the
membership list were commonly available to DASC at
each regular meeting.
As DASC secretary, we do have capability to publish the
membership list (at no cost to DASC) and there has been
previous interest in doing so for the reasons MAC noted.
There was concern that such release on a web site might
be mis-used for SPAM programming. Currently the gate
appears to be the ongoing time and cost of getting the
list from IEEE SA.
Until the issue became material and Paul pushed on the
SA to produce a list, the DASC secretary did not have
access to the list either and thus COULD NOT support
directly any compliance measures by chairs.
If information required to implement DASC rules was not
available to DASC, I question if a working group can be
held in material violation for not implementing such
rules.
I suggest that we must reconcile membership requirements
with availability of the membership list to DASC officers.
John Willis
DASC Secretary
--On Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:14 AM +0100 Evan Lavelle
<eml@riverside-machines.com> wrote:
> Michael McNamara wrote:
>
> > Separately, I have asked you twice via email to you for a copy of
> the > current membership of DASC, so that I could verify the
> membership of > the Working Group members, and have not received a
> reply; likely it is > in your queue of work.
>
> Paul appears to be away this week. I've attached a spreadsheet that
> he received from John Daniel, and posted here last month, with the
> current membership as of 28th May.
>
> > We might also publish the membership somewhere.
>
> I'm not sure that this would achieve anything, unless the list was
> automated (which isn't likely with a $40 membership fee). With the
> current level of membership, there should be an expiry and a renewal
> pretty much every week of the year. WGs would probably still need to
> verify membership by contacting the IEEE directly.
>
> In any event, if a list is published, no email addresses please.
>
> Evan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jun 25 2003 - 03:53:44 PDT