Print

Print


There has to my knowledge not been any problem with the current practice
during the relatively short time that it has existed. However, there is a
different concept called "preventive maintenance" ("if it can possibly
break, make sure that it doesn't, so that you don't need to fix it"). It is
when we are in a situation that we would prefer to "get rid of" somebody,
that it would have been nice to have the mechanism in place. At that time it
most certainly isn't a good time to "fix it".

Håvard

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Milicent K Wewerka
Sent: 2. april 2002 14:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Time limits for JAC appointments?


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 >>>
Dear colleagues,

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.

Any discussion?

Best regards,
Håvard Hjulstad

-------------------------
Håvard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Solfallsveien 31
  NO-1430  Ås, Norway
  tel: +47-64944233  &  +47-64963684
  mob: +47-90145563
  http://www.hjulstad.com/havard/
-------------------------