[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fw: [chairs] Re: Attendance effects on TC membership (was) TC Processrevisions released
One very specific clarification I would appreciate: when do the Observers
in my TC actually lose their ability to contribute and what should I do to
prevent that? In principle, the "when" was on April 15 when the new process
came into effect. In practise, this has not happened yet - they can still
mail the TC mail mailing list for example. Will the TC Admin inform each TC
chair which of their current Observer members' are eligible for conversion
to (non-voting) member before they become unable to send mail to the TC
mailing list?
Regards,
Ian Robinson
STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect
IBM Hursley Lab, UK
ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com
----- Forwarded by Ian Robinson/UK/IBM on 18/05/2005 03:26 -----
Diane Jordan
<drj@us.ibm.com>
To
10/05/2005 16:20 James Bryce Clark
<jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
cc
chairs@lists.oasis-open.org,
dnickull@adobe.com,
mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org,
steve_anderson@bmc.com
Subject
[chairs] Re: Attendance effects on
TC membership (was) TC Process
revisions released
Most of the members on my TC would see loss of voting rights as very
significant. I agree that leaving this sort of decision to a chair's
discretion could lead to unnecessary controversy.
An idea: refine the rules so that punitive measures would be taken based
on the length of time during which attendance falls below 2/3, eg, x
months or x number of meetings/ballots where x might be on the order of 3
months or 10 meetings/ballots depending on the pace of TC meetings/ballots.
The loa rules make it difficult to use this as a substitute for an "excused
absence". During the recent review, I suggested that the limit on loa's be
raised or eliminated but never saw any response to this. The limitations
seem unnecessary since the TC has to approve loa's after the first one
anyway. This is something the TC can monitor and take action on if an
abuse occurs.
I think more flexibility is in order to accomodate a global community of
professionals many of whom are participating in these standards efforts
above and beyond their full time responsibilities at their companies.
Regards, Diane
IBM Emerging Internet Software Standards
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709
James Bryce Clark
<jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
>
To
steve_anderson@bmc.com, Diane
05/09/2005 11:07 PM Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
dnickull@adobe.com
cc
mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org,
chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject
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]