The
XACML and SAML TCs have used this procedure for years. It is completely legal.
A
minor nit, the working meeting (we call the focus meetings because we focus on a
small number of issues) can generate items for action during an official
meeting, but it is only legal to make a MOTION during the offical meeting. In
effect the focus calls have the same status as email
discussions.
Also,
in many cases productive F2F meetings have been held without quorum. The results
were later ratified at an official meeting.
Hal
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
|