On 5 July 2012 12:48, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
In looking at the needs over time and the fact that the structure needs to be simple and flexible, I think picking any one configuration can be difficult, unless it is the most basic.
I think that the multi-region nature of ALAC is critical and the most basic. If the ExecComm has real function then its structure needs to be representative of the regions. I think it would be problematic to not consider this. Perhaps the reason only a minority spoke up to support is because they all thought it was basic and a given.
I think the necessary functions can vary over time; the 3 you have seem right, but there may be others and they may need to be split between a few people in times of great pressure.
Agree heartily on all of these. (and how often has THAT happened lately? ;-) ) Beyond that, I disagree on the specific grouping of the three and continue to maintain that policy -- as a core product of At-Large -- is not just a sub-group of structure and is in fact quite different in its deliverables, its target audience and its human resource requirements. The three-way split should be slightly different: - Communications: Community, Outreach, External Relations - Structure: Finance, Administration, Process, Accountability & Transparency - Policy: gTLDs, Internationalization, Accessibility, User Rights (We do not do enough in Legal to justify it a separate realm, but Accountability & Transparency -- which encompasses conflict-of-interest issues -- ought to be there) - Evan