OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [chairs] TC attendance rules


The purpose for the warning notice is to give the member something to 
show their boss to make her realize that they
must attend the next meeting to retain voting rights.

TomRutt

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
>
>
>
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]