chairs message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Attendance effects on TC membership (was) TC Process revisions released
- From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
- To: steve_anderson@bmc.com,drj@us.ibm.com,dnickull@adobe.com
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 20:07:31 -0700
At 12:15 PM 5/9/2005, Anderson,
Steve wrote:
I don't know if this was just added or if I simply missed it before, but
I have a concern about the policy on maintaining voting status. The
new policy [1] says that upon missing 2 out of 3 successive meetings, the
member loses voting status -- period. It says a warning MAY be sent
(not sure when -- after the first absence?), but that loss of voting
status does not depend on such a warning.
Under the current good standing policy, missing 2 out of 3 consecutive
meetings results in a warning. Loss of voting status only occurs if
the member misses the next meeting. That means that it takes
missing 3 out of 4 meetings (and a warning) to lose status.
I can see why removing the warning from the process is valuable.
But the automatic loss of voting status after missing only 2 out of 3
meetings (rather than 3 out of 4) is, IMO, unreasonable, particularly
given the lengthy and non-automatic process for regaining voting
status. Normal "day job" requirements are likely to cause
absence in 2 out of 3 meetings more often that the LOA process is
designed to accommodate.
Thanks for your comment, Steve. We are posting a
more comprehensive description of the process changes to this group later
this week, but let me specifically address the attendance-rules issue you
raise. You're right that the 2005 rules cause a member to lose
status a bit faster, in case of nonattendance; but it is less of a
status drop, and is based on the 2004 review draft which we circulated
and was favorably received.
A key issue in our 2005 revisions was that TC
membership is more consequential now. As the new IPR Policy comes
into effect, members of a TC have more explicit IPR-related rights and
obligations by reason of their membership. Voting privileges have
been made distinct from TC membership, so that the latter can remain more
constant. Under the old 2003 rule [1], the consequence of failure
to regularly attend was loss of TC *membership*. Under the
current 2005 rule [2], nonattending members may retain their TC
membership but risk losing their *voting rights*. So those
who are regularly absent will no longer fall off the mailing list, nor
lose their ability to claim membership. Losing a TC vote is a
penalty -- designed to keep a TC from gradually becoming incapable of
reaching quorum, as members fail to attend -- but a lighter one than
under the prior rules.
Diane and Duane also point out that the 2-out-of-3
rule no longer includes a mandatory warning notice. So really we've
changed from losing status after the 3rd missed meeting, to doing so
after the 2nd. That's true. The Board subcommittee drafting
these changes (which I chair) believed that a simpler rule would be
better, based on past TC chair concerns about complexity. We felt
that the less-harsh result (in which only the vote is lost) made this
tolerable. To be fair, this change was present in the October 2004
member review draft, and I do not believe we received any negative
comments about it. Of course, we always will welcome suggestions
for further change.
Other differences:
-- The 2003 rules counted both meetings and
ballots; some felt that a mixed sequence of those events might lead
to ambiguous results. The 2005 rules use only one or the other,
depending on whether (by standing rule) the TC formally has elected to do
without meetings.
-- The 2003 rules looked to presence at the beginning
roll call, while the 2005 rules measure simply by presence as noted in
the meeting minutes.
-- Duane suggests that more TC chair discretion should
be used. While most of our TCs and leaders are admirably collegial
mode, in today's far more competitive sphere, our rules do try to
minimize opportunities for potential competitors to wield wide
discretionary power over each other. So it's deliberate that
we do not use many unguided personal judgment calls. However, there
*is* a structured leave of absence provision, in both the new and
old rules, to cover such circumstances.
I'm sure that we will gain some experience in
practical application of the new rules that will lead to further ideas
for improvement. We do want to hear back from our TC leaders as
they encounter those issues, and appreciate the feedback.
One of our fundamental principles -- derived from
Roberts Rules -- is that the entire TC may control the frequency of
meetings, so that members are not forced to attend any more of them than
the majority wishes to impose. Do you think that a member's loss of
voting rights (versus membership) for nonattendance will impair their
ability or willingness to participate? In a future round of
changes, do you think that 2 out of every 3 meetings is asking too
much? With rules like this, are we protecting a TC's ability to
reach quorum more than really is necessary?
Within the month I expect we will announce a second
round of call-in open telephone conferences (as discussed in late March)
to discuss the rule changes and these issues.
Best regards Jamie
[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process_2003.09.18.php#termination
[2]
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.5
~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director, Standards Development, OASIS
~ jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]