Page History

Lines 41-42 state that candidates will be vetted. By whom? And using what criteria?

If the vetting is that the eduGAIN Secretariat will ensure the slate is diverse & representative (as in lines 44-45) then I propose that the current lines 39-45 be replaced with:

"Requests for nominations to the eduGAIN Steering Committee will be initiated by the Secretariat. Candidates can be self nominated, nominated by their organisation or by another organisation including current eduGAIN Service Team members.

The eduGAIN Secretariat will ensure that the slate of nominees is diverse and representative of the eduGAIN community. A list of proposed nominees will then be circulated to the General Assembly."

'eduGAIN Service Owner': This role/function is not mentioned in the Constitution. Is that intentional?

'Technical Profiles': perhaps better 'Technology Profiles' in order to meet the wording of the Constitution?

Definitions, Steeting Commitee: "voted for" then "nominatated by" is backwards, reverse order

Also, "a body that consists of representatives voted for by Member Federations nominated by Member Federations’ representatives" isn't fully correct: not only "Member Federations’ representatives" can nominate, also eST, cf. line 41

I'd prefer we avoid any and all duplication between Consituency Glossary, ToR Definitions, etc.
ToR sec 2 duplicates Constituency sec 2.2 (if those are even fully identical, I haven't checked, why should anyone check?).

If we want to be able to update the ToR more easily (i.e. without getting the constitution re-signed by everyone) keep all related definitions, responsibilities, etc. (only) in the ToR and have the constitution reference those as needed.

Clarify "ex-officio role". Wikipedia mentions both possibilities of voting and non-voting ex-officio roles. I could try to infer the intention (4 assembly members + 2 others + 1 service owner = 7 which can never be tied, cf. line 66, implying the role to be non-voting) but simply amending the enumeration of non-voting roles in lines 31-33 makes that explicit.

The SO will have a vote which is why recognised as a formal member of the SC.  Others are only observers.

Add "as observers" to line 35.

"Candidates can be self nominated, nominated by their organisation or by another organisation" – how will those "organisations" know about when and where to even nominate someone? Will votes be announced across the wider community to reach the "organisations", beyond and outside of the Member Federation's representatives? Or does that just mean "Member Federation's representatives" here again?

Covered by Alex (so +1): Add "by the eduGAIN Secretariat" after "Candidates will be vetted", even though that's answered in the next paragraph. Or merging those two paragraphs.

"ensure ... diverse and representative": it may not be within the powers of the eSec to actually ensure that, e.g. due to a given set of nominees/candidates willing to do the work. Maybe "try to ensure"? "will make efforts to ensure"?

I feel this gives the eSec too much power -- filtered/ignored/blocked nominees would never be seen and could never be voted for by the assembly.
Full transparency (i.e., informing the assembly who's nominations where excluded and on what grounds) would seem like a necessary (though possibly not sufficient) condition: Silently dropping people from the list of nominees at the sole discretion of the eSec doesn't sound proper to me as it invites a certain potential for arbitrariness.
N.B.: This is not commenting on the trustworthiness of the people acting as the current eduGAIN Secretariat but on rules that might outlive any of the people we currently rely on. Also, a thought experiment (whether the ToRs as stated might give too much power here) is only/more useful if actors with at least slightly adversarial behaviour are imagined.

More voting: Why is a separate ballot necessary? Just mark them as external on the roster.
(I don't see the strict need for even that but an "FYI" can't hurt, of course.)

More voting: If the member is interim anyway why have a vote? Let eSC chair or eSO decide. Or what exactly is "interim" about such a member if there's voting needed anyway?
Alternatively, drop the "interim" concept (and any text/processes specific to that) if the "interim" case doesn't deviate from the "ordinary" process of replacing members drastically.

More voting: See my comment on the Constitution Consultation for one possible alternative approach that'd save us all a lot of (pointless, I'm arguing) voting which might then also be extended for (most) other cases the documents currently call for votes.