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

[Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>]

 > An alternative would be to officially legitimize the
 > pseudo-category "member, nonvoting" conferred by the Kavi
 > interface and say that (voting) members who don't attend two out
 > of every three meetings are automatically shifted into this
 > category so that they don't count towards a quorum.  The original
 > design deliberately prohibited nonvoters from posting, but I now
 > think that this may have been an unnecessary restriction.

No, let's not go there. There is, I believe, no way to differentiate
between a prospective member and a 'member, nonvoting'.

What I would like to see is for the Kavi process to follow the OASIS TC
process and not the other way around...

 >
 > Having said that, I have to add that I'm not eager to continue
 > this discussion in email.  Process design issues have to be hashed
 > out face-to-face.

Or over the phone...




Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM wrote:
> (I wrote this before seeing Eduardo's response, but I think that
> my answer mostly agrees with his.)
> 
> | Suppose a member misses 2 meetings in a row. They are sent a
> | warning and they attend the next meeting. So far so good. However,
> | unless they attend the NEXT meeting, they will lose membership, as
> | they will have missed 3 out of 4 meetings. In other words, the
> | pattern N-N-Y-N should be treated the same as N-Y-N-N.
> 
> The requirement is that people have to attend two meetings in
> every three-meeting window, and if they don't, they get a warning.
> So the state transitions in your example go like this:
> 
> 1. Y-N-N warning sent
> 
> 2. N-N-Y OK (resets the counter)
> 
> 3. N-Y-N warning sent ...
> 
> The language "or if the member consistently fails to attend
> two out of every three meetings" was intended to prevent people
> from gaming the system by repeating this cycle ad infinitum.  
> 
> Before we get into an extended discussion of this interpretation,
> I hasten to add that the language could use some work.  It was
> copied from the rules for ANSI committee membership, as expressed
> in NCITS V3 rules as follows:
> 
>    Voting members of NCITS and its subgroups shall be terminated
>    under the following conditions:
> 
>    a) The principal and all alternate representative(s) shall be
>       warned in writing upon failure of the organization to:
> 
>       (1) attend two out of three successive meetings, in which
> 	  case the membership shall be terminated if not
> 	  represented at the next meeting; or
> 
>       (2) return 80% of the total letter ballots (non-accelerated)
> 	  closing during the present calendar quarter, in which
> 	  case the membership shall be terminated if the member
> 	  fails to return at least 80% of the total letter ballots
> 	  (non-accelerated) closing during the subsequent quarter.
> 
> Note that the NCITS/ANSI rules assume a delegate membership
> structure rather than an individual expert membership structure.
> 
> | (i). A member shall be warned by mail from the chair of the TC
> | upon their first failure to attend two out of every three
> | successive meetings of the TC. Membership shall be terminated if
> | the member fails to attend the next meeting following transmittal
> | of the warning or if the member consistently fails to attend two
> | out of every three meetings.
> 
> In light of some experience with the TC process, I think the best
> fix (and the one that best represents the original intention of
> the committee that drafted this language) would simply be to
> change "shall be terminated" to "may be terminated."  In other
> words, make this attendance pattern grounds for termination, but
> leave the final disposition to the chair.  I know that this is
> basically what we had in mind.
> 
> An alternative would be to officially legitimize the
> pseudo-category "member, nonvoting" conferred by the Kavi
> interface and say that (voting) members who don't attend two out
> of every three meetings are automatically shifted into this
> category so that they don't count towards a quorum.  The original
> design deliberately prohibited nonvoters from posting, but I now
> think that this may have been an unnecessary restriction.
> 
> Having said that, I have to add that I'm not eager to continue
> this discussion in email.  Process design issues have to be hashed
> out face-to-face.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgroup.php
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair