For those who are on the At-Large list and read it, forgive my cross-posting this. But last time I checked, some people on the ALAC list were not on the global list. I am posting this here because I would like to serve notice that I think we need to have a face-to-face discussion about what the performance rules and processes SHOULD be. I will volunteer (if people choose) to try to write them up for incorporation into our rules after that. But I think we need to talk about it first. Alan
To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Language Issues
At 27/09/2008 12:04 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
re: "we introduced rules that allow the ALAC to get rid of people who cannot participate; there is really no excuse for not applying them."
Vittorio,
The Chair is aware of the rules but has decided not to apply the rules. That's why we are in this mess.
We did put in place some formal rules for assessing performance. In my opinion, the rules were ill-advised in that they set very specific quantitative levels of performance - some of which were reasonable, and some were not. They have the merit of being completely objective and not at all subjective. In my mind, that was a mistake.
Attendance IS important, but saying that a person attended all meetings, and even submitted formal reports in all possible cases, says NOTHING about how that person is contributing or passing information in both directions. Someone who attends but does not participate, and who files reports that have little content, is not really a person who we want to cherish.
We do need to be able to take action in cases of non-performance, but those processes need to be far more subjective, and the actions need to have levels of action between "You are meeting all requirements" and "We are removing you". Removing someone, or even counselling them that there performance is below par, is a serios thing, and if the ALAC is going to do it, they need to duly consider such action and not have it triggered purely by a spreadsheet.
I will be so bold as to use myself as an example. My attendance at meetings has been pretty good. If I had missed one ALS vote I would have been substandard (there were only 2 and our "required standard" is 75%). I have done an enormous amount of work on behalf of the ALAC and in my capacity as GNSO Liaison, and I have pretty diligently presented ALAC positions (where there were any) to the GNSO, and presented topical GNSO issues to ALAC and At-Large. But I have been less than diligent in filing formal reports for ALAC teleconferences. Should I improves that? Certainly, and in fact I changed how I was presenting info last month. Others can judge whether my case needs attention or not, but I use it as an example (without pointing fingers at anyone else) that we need to judge performance on a more global sense than red-shaded cells in an Excel file.
Alan