RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules

["Anderson, Steve" <Steve_Anderson@bmc.com>]

Speaking as a secretary (granted, a strange creature), I'm THRILLED to do
away with the manual notices.  Now if Kavi can be made to generate them
automatically, that would be ideal, but until then, I'd REALLY rather not
take that task back on.

I have said before and will say again that automatic re-instatement is the
right thing to do.  This idea seems to be morphing so that anyone who
obtains TC Membership and attends 2 out of 3 meetings gets Voting Status
without having to explicitly ask for it.  I'm not completely convinced on
this, but I guess it's ok.

As for whether termination should happen at 2/3 or 3/4, I somewhat favor
3/4, based on the observed behavior within the TCs I serve.  This is the
level that separates the active from the inactive.
--
Steve Anderson
BMC Software
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Philpott, Robert [mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:16 AM
To: Elysa Jones; James Bryce Clark; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules

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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>