Global Geodetic Observing System (GGOS) Sixth Meeting of the Steering Committee ----------------- Saturday, October 7, 2006 05:30 PM - 7:00 PM

The present ToR are in conflict with the By-Laws in particular because the Steering Committee appears to be too large and the membership is not compliant with the By-Laws.

According to the IAG By-Laws, the Project Steering Committee of a IAG Project has the following membership:

1. The project chair appointed by the IAG Executive Committee
2. One member from each Commission appointed by the Commissions' Steering Committees
3. Two Members-at-Large proposed by the members of the Project Steering Committee and approved by the IAG Executive Committee
4. Chairs of the IAG Project sub-groups (if any)

The current GGOS Steering Committee is in conflict with these By-Laws for several reasons:

• (I) The IAG EC appointed a chair and two vice chairs.
• (II) There are currently six members at large.
• (III) There are designated substitutes for each member.
• (IV) It is not clear, whether the Services can be considered as Project sub-groups of GGOS, and, therefore, it is not clear whether the Service representatives can be considered 'Chairs of Project sub-groups'.
• (V) The GEO representatives are not 'Chairs' of Project sub-groups.

Here the thoughts of the GGOS EC on the five points above:

• (I) This is not a crucial point since this actually originates from the IAG EC. In recognition of the size and relevance of GGOS and its many external relations, which is associated with a load of tasks (leading and representing GGOS) that can hardly be placed on one person alone, the IAG EC decided in Cairns that there should be two vice-chairs. In order to reconcile this, the IAG By-Laws could be changed to state
  "1. The project chair and up to n vice-chairs appointed by the IAG Executive Committee",
  where n would be 2 or larger.
• (II) GGOS choose to have more Members-at-Large in order to get better links to geographical regions otherwise not represented in the Steering Committee. There are several options to reconcile this conflict:
  • (a) The number of Members-at-Large is reduced to two, and the selection procedure is done according to the By-Laws: this could result in GGOS having a Steering Committee with large geographical regions not represented in the Steering Committee.
  • (b) GGOS accepts (a). In addition, GGOS initiates regional GGOS Sub-groups, and the chairs of these groups would be members of the SC. This could actually lead to a better link between GGOS and these regions, since it would involve more than one individual from any given region.
  • (c) The IAG By-Laws are changed to state
    "3. Up to m Members-at-Large proposed by the members of the Project Steering Committee and approved by the IAG Executive Committee"
    with m being a number between 4 and 6. Then GGOS selects these Members-at-Large according to the By-Laws.
• (III) Again, there are several ways to reconcile this conflict, namely
  • (a) The substitutes are eliminated. Since the By-Laws do not make room for ad hoc substitutes, this could lead to a situation where GGOS components/Sub-groups are often not represented at a Steering Committee meeting.
  • (b) The By-Laws are changed to allow for designated substitutes.
  • (c) The By-Laws are changed to allow for ad hoc replacements, and each Steering Committee member can asked to include someone on the mailing list of the Steering Committee so that potential candidates are kept informed about Steering Committee matters. However, ad hoc substitutes could introduce some fluctuation.
• (IV) It is obvious that GGOS needs to be built on the existing Services and Centers. Therefore, these components need to be represented in the GGOS Steering Committee in an appropriate way. If these components are considered as sub-groups of the GGOS Project, then their chairs have to be the representatives in the Steering Committee. In order to relax this condition, the IAG By-Laws would have to be changed to
  "4. Chairs of the IAG Project sub-groups or their representatives (if any)"
  However, in order to avoid a discussion whether the Services are actually 'sub-groups', it would be better to change this to:
  "4. Chairs (or their representatives) of the IAG Project sub-groups or components (if any)"
  Since there is no doubt that IAG Services have to be components of GGOS, this latter text would reconcile the conflict fully. It also would continue to allow for the chairs of the GGOS WGs to be Steering Committee members. Another solution, though somewhat superficial, would be to create a GGOS Sub-group for each Service, e.g. and 'GNSS Working Group', with the chair being chosen by the GGOS Steering Committee based on a nomination from IGS. There is no limitation in the IAG By-Laws on the number of Project sub-groups and there are no regulations on how a chair of a sub-group is chosen. Therefore this would be compliant with the By-Laws. But it would create additional and unnecessary overhead, and could easily be missunderstood as GGOS competing with the services.
• (V) The representation of each group of IAG/GGOS Representatives to the individual GEO Committees in the GGOS Steering Committee is difficult to reconcile with the current By-Laws or with modified By-Laws. To consider each of these groups of two to three representatives as a GGOS Sub-group appears unjustified. However, the complete group of IAG/GGOS representatives to the GEO Committees could be consider such a Sub-group. Therefore, GGOS could establish a WG on 'GEO Committee contributions', and the chair of this WG would be a member of the Steering Committee.