RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules

["Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>]

As I've stated before, the 2 out of 3 requirement seems way too
restrictive for our TC which does meet regularly. Please bring back the
2 out of 3 + Notice OR adopt a 3 out of 4 rule (with no notice?). I have
no preference.

Rob Philpott
Senior Consulting Engineer
RSA Security Inc.
Tel: 781-515-7115
Mobile: 617-510-0893
Fax: 781-515-7020
Email: rphilpott@rsasecurity.com
I-name:  =Rob.Philpott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elysa Jones [mailto:ejones@warningsystems.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:06 AM
> To: James Bryce Clark; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [chairs] TC attendance rules
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>