On 16. May 2024, at 16:49, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 01:30:53PM +0000, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:
While this might not seem like a major difference, I think part of the problem is exactly this. Perhaps the members SHOULD vote on the activity plan? At least the members might read it then?..
TBH, I thought we did actually vote (or at least "formally confirm") the activity plan, but the meeting minutes disagree with me. So, no, we did not.
But I agree that we should.
This said, this might actually be an even worse rat-hole than the charging scheme - how many resolutions do you want on it? In what detail level?
Also TBH, I don’t want to vote on every activity plan item and not even necessarily on categories because I’m not informed enough on all the different parts and we vote for EB candidates so that they can make informed decisions. Also, as you said, what happens when no new activity plan is approved? If we want changes to the activity plan maybe we could create some sort of mechanism to propose changes and after an impact analysis we could vote or have some sort of consent, similarly as we have in the WGs. I think it would be good to have a discussion in general if and how we can incorporate member input in a “non-destructive” and more robust way. Best Regards Sebastian -- Sebastian Wiesinger Senior Principal Network Architect Service Integration noris network AG Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 90471 Nürnberg Deutschland Tel +49 911 9352 1459 Fax +49 911 9352 100 Email sebastian.wiesinger@noris.de noris network AG - Mehr Leistung als Standard Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel, Florian Sippel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689