RE: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS TC Member Attendance Rules

["Steve Anderson" <sanderson@opennetwork.com>]

First of all, I am completely in favor of a uniform manner of handling this across all TCs.  That will avoid any hint of impropriety in all our affairs.  And I suspect that many (maybe most?) TCs are far less diligent than what we're talking about here.
 
I serve as secretary for 2 TCs, and have done so for quite some time.  I believe that there is ambiguity in language here (possibly intentionally), so I will offer my interpretation and approach to enforcement.
 
I feel more compelled by the explicit directions of "miss 2 out of 3, send warning, then terminate if no-show for the next meeting" then by the vagueness of terminating based on consistently not attending 2 out of 3.  My feeling has always been that it isn't reasonable to terminate someone without an immediately preceding warning that states exactly what they must do to avoid termination.
 
When I first began handling this, I missed the point that the N-Y-N attendance pattern should result in a warning.  When I began using that standard (and ever since), invariably I'll get a response that says "but I attended the previous meeting".  So this alone is fairly unintuitive to members.  I can see where the Y-N-N-Y pattern should result in two consecutive warnings, but I've not followed that due to the sure confusion that would create ("I got a warning after actually attending a meeting???").  Alternatively, the first warning in this case could require attendance at 2 consecutive meetings, but that seems to expect too much of people's memory.
 
I'll grant that my approach allows a person to get by with an every-other-meeting attendance pattern, which is not desirable.  However, even with valuable TC contributors (which is what this process is supposed to encourage), there have been periods due to various things where their attendance has been shaky even by my enforcement.  So I wouldn't be quick to make this more rigid, lest such contributors be forced to repeat the prospective process.
 
Regardless, I'm open to whatever consensus we can reach.
--
Steve