Speaking as one of the co-selectors, our first concern was picking a team that had strong experience and expertise. We did pay a tiny bit of attention to the fact that people had applied via the Independent Experts route, and we recognized that if we didn't pick any from that list it would send a negative signal about the utility of applying via that path. But, at least from my viewpoint, I don't think of someone chosen via that path as having any greater or lesser weight or any more or less specific role than members coming from the SOs and ACs. Bottom line: I think we've already documented the lineage, and my preference would be to drop all references to lineage going forward. Annotating the names of the chair and vice or co-chair is quite different and definitely appropriate. Steve On Feb 23, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I agree that there need no explicit separation. When/if we publish lists, it would be good to mention the lineage, much as we typically put (Chair) after a name. But no need to differentiate while we are working.
Alan
At 23/02/2013 02:16 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
During the organization call Friday I was using a print out of the members. It had separate sections for the Volunteer Review Team members, the Independent Experts and the Ex-Officios. My preference is for all of the team members to be considered uniformly part of the same team, leaving behind the history of how we were selected. However, if the team prefers to retain the distinctions, it's certainly workable.
This is a small point, but since I found myself reacting internally and, to some extent, tripping over it while I chaired the call, I thought I'd mention it.
Preferences?
Thanks,
Steve
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2