James
Forgive me if this question appears naïve.
But, can a TC elect to distinguish between official meeting (voting meetings
which count towards 2 out of 3 rule for dismissal of voting rights) and
discussion meeting (which are not official but geared more to discussing the
work product of the TC) which may generate motions for voting but do not vote
until the official meetings??? I ask this because I think that frequent
meetings are useful for clarifying discussion that occurs through the mailing
list. However, if the TCs have to weigh the benefit of frequent meetings
versus the repercussion of losing voting status due to too many meetings, we
might find ourselves talking less in F2F meeting / teleconference and opting
for more email discussion that are not nearly as fruitful. What are your
thoughts on this? Do the rules allow for this kind of interpretation?
/r
Michael Ruiz
703-668-4243
703-785-9503
From: James Bryce
Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 11:08
PM
To: steve_anderson@bmc.com;
drj@us.ibm.com; dnickull@adobe.com
Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org;
chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [chairs] Attendance
effects on TC membership (was) TC Process revisions released
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