Subject: Re: DASC P&P Comments
From: John Michael Williams (jwill@astragate.net)
Date: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 21:18:09 PST
Hi Jim.
Jim Lewis wrote:
> Please don't confuse this with my last post.
> The last one was for working groups. This one is
> for DASC P&P. Note there are some similarities since
> the documents are related.
>
> DASC P&P Comments
> -------------------------
> IMO, too much is included by reference in the working
> group procedures. The introduction asserts some statements
> that any interested party has the right to (a), (b), and (c),
> but the document fails to define exactly who can participate
> and how one can accomplish the above tasks (a, b, c).
> Rather than leave this a general complaint, I have made
> several proposals below, some with details some without.
>
> It would be nice if all DASC working groups had identical
> or nearly identical operating procedures.
>
> -------------------------
> Section 3 does not define the term of the officers.
> If it is 2 years, I propose we add the new subsection
> as follows:
> 3.1: Term
> The term of an officer in the working group is 2 years.
I assume you mean term in the DASC?
Otherwise, I agree with the rest.
>
> ...
>
> Best Regards,
> Jim Lewis
>
--
John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Nov 23 2003 - 21:16:52 PST