Hi Chuck, Thanks for reading and commenting so quickly. Some quick responses. On 6 Mar 2008, at 11:06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
I definitely think that having a Council liaison on every WG is a good idea and think that where possible two liaisons may be good, especially in WGs that may last for a considerable length of time, thereby providing a backup liaison.
I agree. the reason I worded it as I did "at least one" is that there may be cases where the scpe is narow enough or the milestones short enough that this may not be necessary. As I have probably made clear various times in the past I am personally very much in favor of co- chaired leadership for precisely the reaon you give. And for the additional reason that having co-chairs gives chairs greater latitude in participation as it allows for one co-chair to stand aside on an issue he or she cares about, leaving the rough consensus call to the other co-chair.
think there are a couple of words missing in the following in the first paragraph after the list of bullets on page 2: "These rules also do specify any guidelines for the relationship between the GNSO, the GNSO Council and the WGs. As it stands, these rules may not a sufficient recipe for a WG as it can leave a WG either floundering without recourse or subject it to undue influence from the GNSO council." Is there a 'not' missing in the first sentence and a 'be' missing in the second sentence?
Yes. Thank you. Corrected version attached. a.