 |
 |
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/ -------------------------