OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [chairs] Attendance effects on TC membership (was) TC Process revisions released


I’m not sure I agree with position that losing voting status is now less important to TC participants, but I do see the significance of IPR obligations on official TC Members.

 

So if voting status is now (arguably) viewed as being a smaller increase in significance over TC Membership, and can be rescinded automatically at a lower threshold of 2 out of 3 consecutive meetings, my suggestion would be to add the complementary mechanism:  automatic restoration of voting status after attending 2 out of 3 consecutive meetings.  This only applies to TC Members who:

-          have already requested voting status

-          have completed the prospective period

-          have lost voting status within the last, say, 3 meetings

 

Naturally, a voting member can request being moved out of voting status, and this mechanism would no longer apply.

 

Note that this is similar to the way other organizations handle voting status.


Steve Anderson

BMC Software

 


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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]