All, attached is the revised draft for rules of procedure, incorporating what was agreed on today's call (and also some of Izumi's suggestions, which seemed non-controversial to me - mostly clarifications). I have also incorporated the minimum participation requirements taken verbatim from the Self Review, even if I had to adapt them a bit - in particularly, it said that members are expected to participate in all ALS accreditation vote, but it seemed odd to me to send someone away for missing just one vote. So I broke down the list into "qualitative" and "quantitative" requirements, specified that only the quantitative ones count in practice, and lowered the threshold to 3/4 of ALS votes. I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that hopefully we can reach consensus Here they are: ==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft: ----- g. [Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: They shall be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of the ALAC; They shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, and, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, always putting the collective views of the Committee in front of their own.] ----- Suggestions welcome. ==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals: 1. Initial proposal 10 votes in favour. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 10 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour (66%). 2. Wendy's proposal Simple majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 6 must be in favour. If all vote, 8 must be in favour. 3. Izumi's proposal 2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 7 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour. 4. A possible compromise? 2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum 2/3, *and* simple majority of the committee. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 8 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour. My opinion => The initial proposal purposedly makes it hard to do these two things, because changes to fundamental rules need to be broadly shared, and because a recall vote in the middle of a 1-year term is going to be highly controversial anyway. Personally I would like to see these things happen only when there is almost full consensus in the Committee, rather than running into the risk of them happening too often as an ordinary tool of internal "discussion". Also, I'd be afraid of a system that allows a minority of the Committee to take such a decision under any conditions - that's why I think that #4 might be an interesting compromise. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------