We have a saying in the U.S.: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It seems that having finite appointments adds administrative work. Is there a definite advantage to finite appointments that makes the extra work worthwhile? Has there been a problem with the current practice? Milicent Wewerka
>>> Håvard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]> 04/02 5:08 AM >>>
I am sending out a message concerning Michael Everson's (re)confirmasjon as
an observer to the ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee. The appointment is
without any time limit. All previous appointments as well have been
"eternal". That might not be the best solution.
There may be a need for a modification of the procedures for appointments
(both members and observers, and also "liaisons"). But before we do anything
with the wording, we need to agree on the essence.
Would the following "rules" be acceptable?
- Members and observers are appointed for two/three/four(?) years at a time.
- Membership may be reconfirmed any number of times.
- Members and observers my be appointed based on a particular office they
are holding, and in that case there may be a clause in the appointment like
"as long as she/he holds so-and-so office, but subject to reconfirmation
after two/three/four years".
In theory there may be different appointment rules in ISO/TC37 and ISO/TC46,
but I think that it will much better if we can agree on uniform rules.
Håvard Hjulstad mailto:[log in to unmask]
NO-1430 Ås, Norway
tel: +47-64944233 & +47-64963684