Subject: Re: DASC membership
From: John Michael Williams (jwill@astragate.net)
Date: Wed Jun 25 2003 - 11:09:29 PDT
Hi John.
Why not post a "DASC Membership Status" list somewhere
in the IEEE web, sorted by name and just containing
Y or N as "current member", with date last updated?
No Email listing?
Names of those who no longer belong
also could be kept, making maintenance
of the list easy to automate, even by
a daily update.
Access to specific member info, such as Email
or exact dates of membership don't have to
be shown; these could be supplied by the
maintainer should a valid question be raised.
--
John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams
John Willis wrote:
>
> 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 - 11:16:43 PDT