Endorsement of edw54

[Lou Burnard]

On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 01:16, Christian Wittern wrote:
> Burnard Towers <lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> > The minutes of the council meeting in London last year (TCM01) include an
> > action on council members to review document EDW54, the one which defines
> > Workgroup procedures in general, so that it can be "enacted" as TEI policy.
> > The minutes of the next council meeting (TCM02) show no discussion of this
> > action, nor does it seem to have been mentioned subsequently. As this is
> > rather an important part of the way the TEI technical work is defined and
> > carried out, I would like to place this once more on the agenda. Could all
> > council members PLEASE review this document and VOTE on one of the following
> > propositions:
> >
> > A: "EDW54 is endorsed by the TEI Council as defining approved procedures for
> > all TEI Workgroups"
> > B: "EDW54 is in need of modification before it can be adopted by the Council
> > as defining approved procedures for all TEI Workgroups"
> > (If you vote B, you probably also need to make some suggestion about the
> > kinds of modification you think necessary)
> 
> In light of Lou's  other post "Naming of Things", I do not see where
> EDW54 says that WG heads are "ex officio" Council members.  This has
> not been stated before (I think) and if that is the fact, I feel it
> should be mentioned in EDW54.  I vote "B" therefore.
> 

<p>Thanks Christian for spotting this mistake. The assumption in my "naming
of things" note that WG heads are ipso facto de jure and ex officio
council members is clearly unsupported by the evidence. Rather than
modify edw54 I'd prefer to rescind the suggestion in my note.

Apart from anything else, it seems unnecessary to add to the council's
membership in this way: wg heads can always be invited to council
meetings in their own right if need be.

So, I urge council members to vote A and tell me I got the other note
wrong!

L