Re: PAC: CS 2 draft rev. 1

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@eng.sun.com>]

[lauren@sqwest.bc.ca:]

| > 3. Termination of membership
| > 
| >    a. A member shall be warned in writing upon failure to attend
| 
| Does "in writing" include email?

Yes.  Why would it not?

| >    b. A member shall be warned in writing upon failure to return
| >       80 percent of all mail ballots closing during any 90-day
| >       period.  Membership shall be terminated if the member fails
| >       to return 80 percent of all mail ballots closing during the
| >       90 days following transmittal of the written warning.
| 
| What happens if the member is having technical problems, such as 
| with the OASIS listserver? Do we need to say anything at all about 
| this case?

I don't think so.  A member would have to be pretty out of it to
not notice a complete absence of mail from a TC for 90 days.  And
with everyone else sending in ballots, and with a report on the
results at the end, even partial mail service would indicate that
something had gone awry pretty quickly.  Given the impossibility
of proving that a member claiming to have received a message
actually did, I think that any attempt on our part to accommodate
mail failures would simply become a variant on "the dog ate my
homework."

I now think I know why it's assumed in procedures such as the ANSI
form used above that a notice sent by nonregistered surface mail
infallibly reaches its destination even though we all know it's
not true; the alternative would be to provide everyone with an
unimpeachable excuse for not responding.

That said, I can imagine general failures that would put everyone
in nonconformance with 3b.  I suggest we come up with some
general-purpose language that applies both to this situation and a
similar problem that could effect all the different kinds of
notifications in the process, and that we deal with it as a
separate item on the issues list.  I think that this will end up
being a job for the OASIS functionaries who are keeping an eye on
the process.

Jon