[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules
As I've stated before, the 2 out of 3 requirement seems way too restrictive for our TC which does meet regularly. Please bring back the 2 out of 3 + Notice OR adopt a 3 out of 4 rule (with no notice?). I have no preference. Rob Philpott Senior Consulting Engineer RSA Security Inc. Tel: 781-515-7115 Mobile: 617-510-0893 Fax: 781-515-7020 Email: rphilpott@rsasecurity.com I-name: =Rob.Philpott > -----Original Message----- > From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com] > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:06 AM > To: James Bryce Clark; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [chairs] TC attendance rules > > OOPS - Meant keep it at 2 of 3 meetings - slip of the finger.... Elysa > > At 09:00 AM 6/3/2005, Elysa Jones wrote: > >Given the work our TC (emergency management) is currently engaged in and > >that we do hold regular as well as some TC wide special meeting - I am in > >favor of keeping the voting participation at 3/4 meetings. However, the > >need to re-apply and the probationary period seem unnecessary to me. I > >think the voting membership needs to be re-established once the 2 of 3 > >meeting requirement is met. However, I do not see a need to send a > >warning notice. Just my 2 cents. Cheers, Elysa > > > >At 08:19 AM 6/3/2005, James Bryce Clark wrote: > >> One area where we have some clear early feedback on the April 2005 > >> TC Process revisions is in the area of meeting attendance. Under the > >> current rule -- omitting the special case of TCs who have no meetings, > >> and only count ballots -- a TC member can lose their voting rights by > >> missing meetings: > >> > >>>A Voting Member must be active in a TC to maintain voting rights. In > TCs > >>>that hold meetings, the Voting Member must attend two of every three > >>>Meetings, with attendance recorded in the minutes. * * * Voting > Members > >>>who do not participate in two of every three Meetings * * *shall lose > >>>their voting rights but remain as Members of the TC. A warning may be > >>>sent to the Member by the Chair, but the loss of voting rights is not > >>>dependent on the warning. * * * [1] > >> > >>We're actively discussing two changes in response to early feedback. > >> > >> First, the new rule -- which takes away voting rights after two > >> proximate absences without an explicit notice -- is harsher than the > >> prior rule [2], which included a notice prior to the status > >> change. Several have suggested this is too harsh. Possibilities > include > >> -- reinstating the notice (that is, you cease to vote after 2 > misses > >> out of 3 PLUS a notice), or > >> -- lowering the bar (such as, you cease to vote after 3 misses out > >> of 4). > >>The Board's process subcommittee is reviewing this issue in June, and > >>your comments are welcome. > >> > >> Second, instead of requiring that a person who has lost voting > >> rights explicitly re-apply, we are considering making the simpler > >> default assumption that anyone who loses their vote should be > >> automatically re-queued to re-gain it. That would allow us to simply > >> the rosters, and delete the superfluous role "probationary voting > >> member". All TC members would either be "voting members", or simply > >> "members" who will reacquire their vote when their attendance again > >> merits it. Again, your comments are welcome. > >> > >> Regards JBC > >> > >>~ James Bryce Clark > >>~ Director, Standards Development, OASIS > >>~ jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > >> > >>[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.4 > >>[2] http://www.oasis- > open.org/committees/process_2003.09.18.php#termination > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]