Re: [chairs] TC attendance rules

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

Given the work our TC (emergency management) is currently engaged in and 
that we do hold regular as well as some TC wide special meeting - I am in 
favor of keeping the voting participation at 3/4 meetings.  However, the 
need to re-apply and the probationary period seem unnecessary to me.  I 
think the voting membership needs to be re-established once the 2 of 3 
meeting requirement is met.  However, I do not see a need to send a warning 
notice.  Just my 2 cents.  Cheers, Elysa

At 08:19 AM 6/3/2005, James Bryce Clark wrote:
>     One area where we have some clear early feedback on the April 2005 TC 
> Process revisions is in the area of meeting attendance.  Under the 
> current rule -- omitting the special case of TCs who have no meetings, 
> and only count ballots -- a TC member can lose their voting rights by 
> missing meetings:
>
>>A Voting Member must be active in a TC to maintain voting rights. In TCs 
>>that hold meetings, the Voting Member must attend two of every three 
>>Meetings, with attendance recorded in the minutes. * * *  Voting Members 
>>who do not participate in two of every three Meetings * * *shall lose 
>>their voting rights but remain as Members of the TC. A warning may be 
>>sent to the Member by the Chair, but the loss of voting rights is not 
>>dependent on the warning. * * *  [1]
>
>We're actively discussing two changes in response to early feedback.
>
>      First, the new rule -- which takes away voting rights after two 
> proximate absences without an explicit notice -- is harsher than the 
> prior rule [2], which included a notice prior to the status 
> change.  Several have suggested this is too harsh.  Possibilities include
>     -- reinstating the notice (that is, you cease to vote after 2 misses 
> out of 3 PLUS a notice), or
>     -- lowering the bar (such as, you cease to vote after 3 misses out of 
> 4).
>The Board's process subcommittee is reviewing this issue in June, and your 
>comments are welcome.
>
>     Second, instead of requiring that a person who has lost voting rights 
> explicitly re-apply, we are considering making the simpler default 
> assumption that anyone who loses their vote should be automatically 
> re-queued to re-gain it.   That would allow us to simply the rosters, and 
> delete the superfluous role "probationary voting member".  All TC members 
> would either be "voting members", or simply "members" who will reacquire 
> their vote when their attendance again merits it.  Again, your comments 
> are welcome.
>
>     Regards JBC
>
>~   James Bryce Clark
>~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS
>~   jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
>
>[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.4
>[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process_2003.09.18.php#termination