[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules
Seeking clarification - I understand that the main (maybe only) benefit of modifying the rule is to allow the active members to be the quorum we Chairs need to keep the TC moving forward - correct ? Assuming that KAVI (etc) can be setup to ease the administrivia - I would find it acceptable if rules state that - a member is NOT counted (required) for quorum purposes ...when they miss 3 out of 4 and warning notice plus suspension notice has BEEN ISSUED ... they are automatically re-queued next time they become active. carl <quote who="Philpott, Robert"> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > > -- Carl Mattocks co-Chair OASIS (ISO/TS 15000) ebXMLRegistry Semantic Content SC co-Chair OASIS Business Centric Methodology TC CEO CHECKMi v/f (usa) 908 322 8715 www.CHECKMi.com Semantically Smart Compendiums [AOL] IM CarlCHECKMi
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]