Re: [chairs] TC attendance rules

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

OOPS - Meant keep it at 2 of 3 meetings - slip of the finger....  Elysa

At 09:00 AM 6/3/2005, Elysa Jones wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>