Section 1 - Purpose and Authority
1.1. These Regulations on Admission ("Regulations") implement Section 3 (Membership Categories) of the Charter of the Meret Association for Trusted Digital Systems ("Association"). The Regulations are incorporated by reference into the Charter.
1.2. These Regulations are approved by the Selection Committee and ratified by the Governance Board.
1.3. Authority. The Regulations govern: criteria for membership; admission and election procedures; reviewer qualifications; documentary evidence standards; conflict of interest policy; the public record; and amendments.
1.4. Version history table is maintained in Section 14.
Section 2 - Membership Categories
The Association recognizes two membership categories: Professional Member and Fellow.
2.1. Professional Member
2.1.1. Professional Membership is open by application.
2.1.2. Eligibility requirements (all three must be met):
- At least 3 years of professional practice in trusted digital systems or allied disciplines
- Demonstrated documented professional contributions (per Section 4)
- Agreement to adhere to the Association's Code of Conduct
2.1.3. Applications for Professional Membership are subject to an application-processing fee, in the amount published by the Association at the time of application. The fee covers the administrative handling and review of the application, does not create any entitlement to admission, and is not refunded if an application is declined. Beyond the processing fee, Professional Membership is not conditioned on any donation, sponsorship, or purchase, and no payment influences the outcome of an application.
2.1.4. Professional Membership renews annually subject to continued professional engagement in the field, maintenance of accurate profile information, and adherence to the Code of Conduct.
2.2. Fellow
2.2.1. Fellowship is conferred only through peer nomination and election. It is not possible to apply to become a Fellow of the Association. Self-nominations are not accepted.
2.2.2. Fellowship is conferred without application fee, admission fee, annual dues, donation, sponsorship, purchase, or any other financial condition.
2.2.3. Fellowship is conferred upon election and recorded in the Association's official records. A Fellow remains in good standing unless the Fellow resigns or is removed under the Code of Conduct or for material misrepresentation.
2.2.4. Fellows may use the post-nominal designation FMATDS.
2.2.5. Eligibility criteria for Fellowship are set forth in Section 3.
2.3. Tier independence
Professional Membership is not required for Fellowship. Fellowship candidates may be identified from within or outside the Association's membership. Professional Membership status does not contribute to Fellowship eligibility.
Section 3 - Fellowship Eligibility Criteria
A Fellow candidate must satisfy all of the following:
-
Technical Scope. The candidate's qualifying work must fall within trusted digital systems or an allied discipline and be evaluated within one of the Association's defined technical sections (Section 7).
-
Contribution. The candidate must have made at least one technical, scholarly, standards, open-source, patented, architectural, or methodological contribution to the field that originated with the candidate.
-
Recognition. The candidate's work must have earned recognition from the field itself - from experts or established organizations independent of the candidate's employer and of Meret Solutions.
-
Impact. The candidate's work must have had measurable impact - on the field, an industry, a community, an institution, operations, or society.
-
Breadth of Achievement. The candidate's record must demonstrate achievement under at least four of the twelve indicators in Section 3.2, including at least one from each of the three groups (contribution, recognition, and impact).
-
Expert Review. The candidate must be reviewed by at least three senior members of the relevant or an allied field (per Section 6).
-
No Financial Condition. No application fee, admission fee, annual dues, donation, sponsorship, or purchase may be required for Fellowship nomination, election, acceptance, or maintenance.
3.2. Indicators
The Association looks for outstanding achievement of the kinds described below - twelve indicators organized in three groups. A Fellowship case must rest on at least four of the twelve indicators, with at least one from each group.
Group A - Contributions to the Field
- A.1. Published work - research, engineering methods, or technical writing in trusted digital systems or an allied area such as reliability, security, AI governance, data integrity, interoperability, or privacy engineering - that the field has taken up: cited, built on, taught, or put into practice beyond the candidate's own organization.
- A.2. Creation or core stewardship of open-source software in real use beyond the candidate's own organization: production deployments, downstream dependents, an active contributor community, or independent implementations.
- A.3. Invention or innovation carried into practice: a granted patent or original invention that has been implemented, licensed, commercialized, or built on in later work.
- A.4. Standards work that practitioners now follow: contributions carried into standards or specifications adopted by a recognized standards body, working group, industry consortium, or widely used technical community.
Group B - Recognition by the Field
- B.1. Selection by peers to address the field: keynote or invited talks, expert panels, or program committee service at recognized technical, academic, or industry events, where the invitation came from the event rather than the candidate's employer.
- B.2. Honors conferred by the profession: an award, fellowship, or comparable distinction from an established organization independent of the candidate's employer.
- B.3. Review responsibilities the field entrusts to its senior members: editorial service, peer review for recognized journals or conferences, assessment for grant or award programs, or standards-body review.
- B.4. A place in the field's own conversation: the candidate's work discussed, analyzed, or built on in writing by independent authors, practitioners, or the technical press, on the strength of the work itself rather than employer or product publicity.
Group C - Impact of the Work
- C.1. Responsibility for the engineering of a consequential system: technical leadership of a digital system whose scale, criticality, or institutional role - large user bases, high transaction volumes, regulated operation, infrastructure others depend on, or safety and security relevance - made its soundness matter.
- C.2. Systems made demonstrably more trustworthy by the candidate's work: fewer incidents, stronger resilience, remediated security exposure, sounder data integrity or privacy protection, or comparable verified operational improvement, including through methodologies others adopted.
- C.3. The candidate's methods, software, architecture, standards, or patented work adopted on its merits by independent organizations beyond the candidate's own employer.
- C.4. A sustained record of building the field's people and communities: mentorship, teaching, or community leadership carried on over years. This achievement cannot anchor a Fellowship case on its own; it counts toward the required four indicators only alongside at least one achievement from Group A and one from Group B.
Weight of Achievements
The twelve indicators do not carry equal weight. The Selection Committee attaches principal weight to achievements whose reach is visible beyond the candidate's own organization: published work taken up by the field (A.1), open-source work in independent use (A.2), inventions carried into practice (A.3), adopted standards (A.4), honors from independent organizations (B.2), independent discussion of the candidate's work (B.4), and adoption by independent organizations (C.3).
A Fellowship case must rest on at least two achievements of principal weight, and at least one of those must be verifiable through sources independent of the candidate's employer.
The remaining indicators - invited speaking and panel service (B.1), editorial and review service (B.3), system responsibility and operational results known chiefly through the candidate's own organization (C.1, C.2), and mentorship and community leadership (C.4) - carry contributing weight. They strengthen and round out a case and count toward the required four indicators, but they cannot make a case on their own.
3.3. Independent Verification
At least two of the achievements on which a candidacy rests must be verifiable through sources independent of the candidate, the candidate's employer, and the nominators. Employer letters, nominator statements, and the candidate's own materials cannot, alone, carry a case.
3.4. Sustained Achievement
Fellowship ordinarily requires a sustained record of consequential achievement over a significant period, normally 10 or more years of professional activity. Years of experience alone do not qualify. The requirement may be waived by a two-thirds vote of the Selection Committee for candidates whose independently verified achievements demonstrate exceptional field impact despite a shorter career span.
3.5. What Does Not Constitute Outstanding Achievements
Fellowship cannot be obtained through any of the following factors, alone or in aggregate, without independently verified outstanding achievements:
- Years of professional experience alone
- Educational credentials alone
- Payment of dues, fees, donations, sponsorship, or purchase
- Recommendations from colleagues alone, without underlying documented achievements
- Employment in the field alone
- Job titles alone
- Participation in events, courses, or training
- Standardized test scores or certifications without industry recognition
- Professional Membership status
- Affiliation with any sponsor, employer, or partner organization
Section 4 - Professional Member Indicators
A Professional Member candidate must demonstrate at least 2 of the following 5 indicators:
- Professional employment history with increasing responsibility
- Technical contributions (code, articles, presentations) with verifiable record
- Leadership of projects or teams
- Mentorship or community participation
- Continuous professional development (certifications, advanced training, ongoing education)
Section 5 - Selection Process
5.1. Professional Member Process
Professional Membership is administered by the Membership Office.
5.1.1. Step 1 - Application form. Candidate submits application form via the Association website with CV and documentation of 2+ indicators. The application-processing fee (Section 2.1.3) is payable at submission, in the amount published by the Association.
5.1.2. Step 2 - Administrative review. The Membership Office conducts an administrative review to confirm that the applicant satisfies the Professional Membership requirements in Section 2.1 and Section 4. Process: approximately 2 weeks.
5.1.3. Step 3 - Decision. The Membership Office issues an administrative decision and, if the requirements are met, admits the applicant as Professional Member. If approved, admission package issued.
5.1.4. Professional Membership decisions do not involve the Selection Committee and do not constitute recognition of Fellowship, election, or outstanding achievement.
5.2. Fellow Election Process
Fellow election consists of seven stages. Total duration: 3-6 months.
5.2.1. Stage 1 - Nomination.
Eligible nominators:
- Existing Fellow of the Association
- Selection Committee member
- External recognized expert invited by the Selection Committee
Self-nomination is not permitted.
Nomination package (based on public record):
- Citation (500-1000 words) written by proposer describing candidate's contributions
- Preliminary list of indicators candidate appears to meet
- Public-record evidence
- Independent endorsement statements from at least 2 supporters (written separately, no shared content). At least one supporter must be external to the candidate's current employer. International diversity of supporters is encouraged where practicable but is not required.
- Conflict of interest declarations from all nominators
Candidate is not contacted at this stage.
5.2.2. Stage 2 - Administrative Completeness Review.
Secretariat reviews nomination package for completeness. No merits decision at this stage.
Outcome: complete → proceed to Stage 3 / incomplete → return to nominator for completion.
Duration: 1 week.
5.2.3. Stage 3 - Preliminary Eligibility Screening.
A Sectional Review Panel, consisting of at least two individuals who satisfy the Recognized Expert Reviewer Standard (Section 6.3) in the relevant or allied technical section, conducts preliminary eligibility screening to determine whether the candidate's qualifying achievements fall within the relevant technical section and plausibly meet the indicator threshold. Candidate is not contacted at this stage.
Duration: 2-3 weeks. Outcome: proceed to Stage 4 / decline.
5.2.4. Stage 4 - Candidate Consent and Factual Verification.
Selection Committee Chair sends formal letter to candidate. Letter states: candidate has been nominated for consideration as Fellow; acceptance of consideration does not guarantee election; consent is required to proceed.
Candidate response window: 30 days.
If candidate consents, candidate provides:
- Authoritative CV (correcting any errors in public-record version)
- Detailed evidence list for each indicator
- Source documents supporting the submitted materials, with online sources preserved as durable, unedited captures in accordance with Section 8.2
- Consent to publish public profile if elected
- Consent for verification of submitted materials
If candidate declines consent: nomination is withdrawn, no further action taken, materials destroyed.
5.2.5. Stage 5 - Independent Expert Review.
Before Expert Review begins, the Secretariat prepares an Evidence Verification Matrix confirming that submitted materials have been preserved and indexed under Section 8. The Matrix maps each indicator the candidate relies upon to the supporting source documents and third-party records, including:
- Published works through citation databases (Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar)
- Open-source projects through repository metrics
- Awards through issuing organizations
- Speaking engagements through conference programs
- Standards adoption through working group records
The Matrix also records that at least 2 of the achievements relied upon are independently verifiable (per Section 3.3).
The Matrix also records that the case rests on at least two achievements of principal weight under Section 3.2, at least one of them verifiable through sources independent of the candidate's employer.
At least 3 Expert Reviewers (per Section 6) evaluate the candidate's Fellowship record. The Fellowship record consists of the nomination materials, candidate factual verification materials, preserved source documents, the Evidence Verification Matrix, and supporter statements.
Expert Reviewers evaluate the candidate's qualifying achievements under Section 3, including:
- whether the record demonstrates the required breadth of achievement under Section 3.2;
- whether the indicators demonstrate original, sustained, and consequential contribution;
- whether the evidence supports the candidate's election within the relevant technical section.
Each Expert Reviewer prepares a written evaluation.
Duration: 4-6 weeks.
5.2.6. Stage 6 - Selection Committee Vote.
Selection Committee votes may be conducted at a scheduled meeting or through a secure electronic ballot following circulation of the Fellowship record and Expert Reviewer evaluations.
A motion to elect a Fellow passes only with affirmative votes from at least two-thirds of the seated voting members of the Selection Committee. Abstentions and non-responses do not count as affirmative votes.
Decision documented in formal Protocol Extract.
5.2.7. Stage 7 - Governance Board Procedural Ratification.
Selection Committee decision submitted to Governance Board. The Governance Board does not re-evaluate technical merit. The Board confirms only procedural integrity, voting participation and threshold compliance, conflict-of-interest compliance, quota compliance, and documentation completeness. The Board may remand a decision for procedural defects but may not elect a Fellow absent a favorable Selection Committee vote.
After ratification, candidate receives formal election notification and admission package.
5.3. Election Cycles
Fellow election cycles are conducted up to four times per year. The Selection Committee meets as required during each election cycle. The Association does not operate on a monthly admissions schedule. The Selection Committee Chair sets the calendar of cycles for each year and publishes it at meretsolutions.org/elections.
5.4. Annual Quota
Maximum 25 Fellows elected globally per year (hard cap).
Section 6 - Expert Reviewer Qualifications
6.1. Selection Committee Composition
The Selection Committee consists of not fewer than 5 and not more than 11 voting members. The exact number of voting members is set by Governance Board resolution before the beginning of each election cycle.
The Selection Committee must include:
- at least 2 members with academic or research credentials;
- at least 2 members with industry engineering leadership credentials;
- at least 2 members based outside the United States or with substantial international professional recognition;
- at least two-thirds of voting members external to Meret Solutions.
For any Committee of 9 or more voting members, the Committee must include at least 3 members with academic or research credentials, at least 3 members with industry engineering leadership credentials, and at least 3 members based outside the United States or with substantial international professional recognition.
A single member may simultaneously satisfy more than one category (for example, an academic member based outside the United States counts toward both the academic and international requirements).
The Association documents that each voting member satisfies the qualifications in Section 6.3 before that member may vote; these records are maintained by the Association and members' identities are not published individually. Terms are 3 years with staggered rotation; maximum 2 consecutive terms.
Each voting member of the Selection Committee must independently satisfy the Recognized Expert Reviewer Standard in Section 6.3. No individual may vote on a Fellow election unless the Association has documented that the individual qualifies under the Recognized Expert Reviewer Standard in the relevant or allied field.
6.2. Expert Reviewer Requirement
Each Fellow candidate must be evaluated by at least 3 Expert Reviewers. Each Expert Reviewer must be an established practitioner with current standing in the relevant or allied field.
The Association maintains records of each Expert Reviewer's qualifications and the sections they are assigned to review; individual reviewer assignments to a candidacy are not published.
6.3. Recognized Expert Reviewer Standard
To qualify as Expert Reviewer, an individual must hold at least 2 of the following:
- Elected fellowship or senior distinction in a recognized professional society
- Tenured or research faculty role with publications and citations
- Senior technical leadership at a distinguished technology organization
- Standards body leadership role
- Major open-source maintainership of a recognized project
- Granted patents with adoption or citations
- Invited or keynote speaking record at recognized events
- Editorial, reviewer, or judging role for recognized journals, conferences, grants, or awards
- Documented independent industry recognition
Each qualifying credential must be supported by at least one public external verification source independent of the Association. Acceptable external sources include, among others: university or company profile pages; Google Scholar, ORCID, Semantic Scholar, or DBLP records; standards body working group pages; recognized open-source organization profiles; conference program pages; patent databases (USPTO, WIPO, EPO); award announcements from the issuing organization; and editorial or committee pages of recognized journals or conferences. LinkedIn or similar self-published professional profiles alone do not satisfy the external verification requirement.
6.4. Independence Requirement
- At least 2 of the 3 Expert Reviewers for each candidate must be external to Meret Solutions
- Selection Committee composition: at least two-thirds of voting members must be external to Meret Solutions
- Reviewers must have no employment, consulting, financial, legal, client, family, or direct business relationship with the candidate
- Conflict of interest declarations required from each Reviewer prior to evaluation
6.5. Fellow Authority Boundaries
Election as Fellow confers recognition but does not automatically confer reviewer or voter authority within the Selection Committee. Fellows may be eligible to serve as Expert Reviewers or Selection Committee members only after separate appointment, conflict-of-interest clearance, and verification that they meet the Recognized Expert Reviewer Standard.
6.6. Reviewer records
The Association maintains internal records documenting, for each Selection Committee voting member and each Expert Reviewer:
- Full name, current affiliation, current title, country
- Technical sections in which the individual is qualified to review
- At least 2 qualifying credentials under Section 6.3
- At least one public external verification source for each qualifying credential
- Signed conflict of interest declaration
- Term start and end dates (for Selection Committee members)
- Date of admission to the Expert Reviewer roster
These records are retained by the Association and treated as confidential. The identities of Selection Committee members and Expert Reviewers are not published individually.
6.7. Committee Continuity and Rotation
Selection Committee members may serve and vote across multiple election cycles during their appointed terms. Rotation occurs through staggered terms, not by monthly replacement. Approximately one third of the Selection Committee is rotated each year.
A member may not vote on a candidate where:
- a conflict of interest exists under Section 9; or
- the Association has not documented the member's qualification under the Recognized Expert Reviewer Standard for the candidate's technical section or an allied section.
The Selection Committee Chair may appoint a documented alternate voting member, drawn from the Expert Reviewer roster and satisfying the Recognized Expert Reviewer Standard, to substitute for a recused member for the affected candidate only.
6.8. Expert Reviewer Assignment
Expert Reviewers are assigned to a candidate by the Selection Committee Chair (or designee) according to the candidate's technical section and the reviewer's documented expertise.
The same Expert Reviewer may evaluate multiple candidates within an election cycle where qualified and conflict-free. The Association does not use the same reviewer panel for all candidates regardless of technical section. Reviewer assignment per candidate is recorded in the Protocol Extract.
6.9. Founding cohort
The founding cohort of Fellows is appointed by the founding Council on the same evidentiary basis that applies to later election. Once the founding cohort is in place, subsequent Fellows are elected under the standing procedure, and Fellows are eligible to serve as reviewers under Section 6.5.
Section 7 - Field Taxonomy (Sections)
Fellow elections occur within defined technical sections of the Association. Each Fellow is elected within one of the following sections:
- Software Engineering
- Cloud, Platform, and Site Reliability Engineering
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Engineering
- Data and AI/ML Systems
- Interoperability, Observability, and Data Integrity
- Quality Assurance, Verification, and Validation
- Embedded, IoT, and Networked Systems
- Critical Infrastructure and Safety-Critical Systems
- Digital Health, FinTech, EdTech, and GovTech Systems
- Computational, Simulation, and Emerging Systems
Each Fellow is elected within the technical section in which the candidate's qualifying achievements were evaluated. The Public Fellow profile identifies the section of election.
The Selection Committee may, upon 2/3 vote, establish additional sections.
Section 8 - Documentary Evidence Standards
8.1. Objective Documentary Evidence Required
The Fellowship record must contain objective documentary evidence sufficient to verify the indicators relied upon.
8.2. Preservation of Online Sources
Web pages change and disappear, so the record preserves its online sources rather than pointing at them. Each online source is captured whole, as it appeared, in a durable copy (such as a PDF) that shows where the material was published and when the capture was made. A bare link is not a preserved source, and the capture must be presented unedited: partial captures, retouched images, and excerpts assembled by hand cannot stand in for the source itself.
8.3. Source Hierarchy
User-edited sources (Wikipedia, social media bios, personal blogs) are supporting only, not primary evidence.
Preferred independent sources include:
- Official conference programs
- Patent databases
- Journal pages
- Standards records
- GitHub repository metrics
- Package registries
- Google Scholar / Semantic Scholar records
- Employer-independent adoption records
8.4. Letters and Endorsements
Letters of nomination, support, endorsement, or recommendation may not by themselves establish eligibility for Fellowship. Letters may be considered only together with independent documentary evidence.
Duplicative, templated, or substantially identical endorsement statements are not accepted.
8.5. Working Language and Translations
The Association works in English. Where any part of the record was originally produced in another language, the record includes an English rendering prepared by a translator competent in both languages, together with the translator's short signed attestation naming the document it covers and confirming that the rendering is faithful and complete.
One attestation covers one document. A blanket statement spanning several unnamed documents is not accepted, and the Association may decline to rely on material whose translation falls short of this standard.
Section 9 - Conflict of Interest and Independence
9.1. Meret Solutions Relationship
Meret Solutions may serve as founding sponsor of the Association, but the following independence requirements apply.
9.2. Prohibited Participation
No Meret Solutions employee, officer, contractor, or person with a material financial relationship with Meret Solutions may participate in the evaluation or vote for any Fellow candidate where the candidate has:
- A Meret-related employment relationship
- A Meret client or consulting relationship
- A financial or legal relationship with Meret Solutions
9.3. Independence Thresholds
- At least 2 of 3 Expert Reviewers for each candidate must be external to Meret Solutions
- Selection Committee composition: at least two-thirds of voting members must be external to Meret Solutions
9.4. COI Declarations
Conflict of interest declarations are required from all nominators, supporters, reviewers, and committee members. Declarations cover:
- Employment relationships
- Consulting relationships
- Financial relationships
- Legal relationships
- Client relationships
- Family relationships
- Direct business relationships
9.5. Recusal
A nominator, supporter, reviewer, or committee member who has any declared conflict must recuse from the evaluation of the affected candidate.
Section 10 - Eligibility Boundaries
The following are not Fellowship membership and do not satisfy the Fellowship standard:
10.1. Participation in Association events (hackathons, conferences, workshops, webinars) does not confer Fellow status.
10.2. Elected or appointed positions in working groups, committees, or advisory roles are not membership.
10.3. Professional Membership status is not Fellowship.
10.4. Only individual persons may be elected as Fellows. Companies, legal entities, partnerships, and corporations may not be members of the Association. Companies may serve as sponsors or partners but not as members.
Section 11 - Public Record
11.1. Register of Elections.
Each election cycle is recorded on the Association's elections page at meretsolutions.org/elections, together with the Fellows elected in that cycle and the versions of the Charter and these Regulations in effect at the time of election.
11.2. Register of Members and Fellows.
The Association maintains a public register of elected Fellows and admitted Professional Members. Each Fellow's entry identifies the technical section of election. Records of Selection Committee and Expert Reviewer qualifications are maintained under Section 6 and are not published individually.
11.3. Documents of Record.
The Association's governing documents are versioned, published, and archived under Section 12. Every credential cites the versions in effect at the time of election.
11.4. Growth of the Record.
As election cycles complete, the Association may expand its public reporting, for example with cumulative election counts by year and by section. Reporting is added prospectively; the Association does not publish figures it cannot yet substantiate.
Section 12 - Amendments and Versioning
12.1. Amendment procedure.
These Regulations may be amended by 2/3 vote of the Selection Committee, subject to Governance Board ratification.
12.2. Versioning.
Each version of these Regulations carries:
- Version number
- Effective date
- Selection Committee approval date
- Governance Board ratification date
12.3. Public archive.
All historical versions are archived publicly on meretsolutions.org and remain permanently available.
12.4. Prospective application.
Amendments to Fellowship eligibility criteria apply prospectively only and do not alter the criteria applicable to prior election cycles. Each Protocol Extract cites the exact Regulations version in effect at the time of election.
Section 13 - Signatory Authority
This section identifies the official signatories for documents issued under these Regulations. Each document is signed by the officers responsible for its content; documents are not signed by all participating voting members or reviewers.
13.1. Fellow Acceptance Letters. Signed by the Selection Committee Chair. The Executive Director or Association Secretary may co-sign as administrative certifying officer. Fellow Acceptance Letters are not signed by the Meret Solutions CEO, founder sponsor, or any officer outside the operational roles of the Association.
13.2. Fellow Certificates. Signed by the Selection Committee Chair and the Executive Director or Association Secretary. Certificates are not signed by individual Selection Committee voting members.
13.3. Protocol Extracts. Prepared and signed by the Recording Secretary and countersigned by the Selection Committee Chair. Protocol Extracts are not signed by individual voting members or by Expert Reviewers. Individual reviewer evaluations and conflict of interest declarations are retained in the Association's internal election file for the candidate.
13.4. Full Internal Minutes of Selection Committee Meetings. Signed by the Recording Secretary and the Selection Committee Chair. Full minutes are retained in the Association's official records and are not published.
13.5. Governance Board Procedural Ratification Certificates. Signed by the Governance Board Chair and the Board Secretary or Association Secretary. The certificate confirms only procedural matters (process completion, vote threshold, conflict of interest declarations, quota compliance, documentation completeness) and does not re-evaluate technical merit.
13.6. Membership Cards and Digital Badges. Issued by the Membership Office or an officer designated by the Governance Board. Membership cards and digital badges are authenticated through a verification URL and do not require individual wet signatures. Where a signature is added, it is the signature of the Membership Coordinator, Executive Director, or designated officer.
13.7. Fellowship Evaluation Methodology Statement. Signed by the Executive Director or Association Secretary, with optional co-signature by the Selection Committee Chair.
13.8. These Regulations. Signed by the Selection Committee Chair and ratified by the Governance Board Chair or Board Secretary.
13.9. The Charter. The initial Charter is signed by the Founding Board. Subsequent amendments and new versions are signed by the Governance Board Chair and the Board Secretary. The Executive Director may sign as administrative certifying officer.
Section 14 - Version History
| Version | Effective Date | Selection Committee Approval | Governance Board Ratification | Summary |
|---|
| 1.0 | [DATE] | [DATE] | [DATE] | Initial adopted version |
Signed by the Selection Committee Chair and ratified by the Governance Board.
The signed instrument is held in the Association's records. Signatory identities are not published, for privacy; execution may be confirmed through the Association Secretary.
End of Regulations on Admission, Version 1.0