--On Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:54 PM -0400 "SISO-SAC: James McCall"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: "James McCall" ([log in to unmask])
> *** This message was generated from SISO-SAC ***
> The concept of the PDG approving PDG Chair appointments is new.
not quite what i am suggesting. i think the PDG should be "approve" the DG;
since the DG is essentially a sub-committee and sub-committees are
formed via approved motions a DG should be approved by the PDG - via the
motion and voting process
> Para 18.104.22.168 specifically identifies the following responsibility for the
> PDG Chair:
> "The PDG Chair appoints PDG members to any subgroup(s) formed under the
> Para 22.214.171.124.1 expands this responsibility WRT the DG Editor:
> "The PDG Chair and SAC TAD nominate a DG Editor from the DG membership and
> submit the name for SAC approval.
> Para 126.96.36.199.2 is the only place where the PDG has input:
> "A PDG may nominate a DG Assistant Editor for a Product component and
> the name for SAC approval.
i thing the PDG should form/approve the DG.
additionally, the DG should elect its own chair since they will be
working closely together.
> The PDG elects a chair to be responsible and I do not think the PDG should
> have to vote on the decisions the Chair makes in meeting these
the PDG chair is responsible for for running the PDG; not forming PDG
> The scenario as I see it should be as follows:
> * The PDG Chair asks for volunteers for the DG and asks which of
> these volunteers are willing to take on the additional responsibilities as
> DG Editor or Asst Editor.
sound good if this is done in the form of a motion at at meeting (either
face-to-face or electronic).
> * The PDG Chair then interviews each of the volunteers and then
> selects the editor(s) and members for each DG.
> * The PDG Chair announces his appointments to the PDG.
i don't agree. let the PDG decide on the DG - after all it is the
PDG (not the PDG chair) which the DG serves.
> Since the PDG members elected the Chair and were offered the opportunity
> volunteer for the DG and editor positions, I don't think there is a need
> an additional approval. If someone does not like the Chair's decision,
> they should use the appeal process to try to get it changed.
PDG approval is not additional if the PDG chair stays out of the decision
mechanism (except for the normal chiar duties of running a motion and vote).
> I do not see anything in this process that violates the SISO Operating
> Principles and it keeps the overall process simple.
but as i said earlier, the DG serves the PDG - so the PDG should
appoint/approve the DG.
To unsubscribe from the SISO-SAC list, click the following link: