Re: [chairs] TC attendance rules

[Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

+1

Newcomer, Eric wrote:

> +1
>
>  
>
> Eric
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Michael De Nicola [mailto:mwdn@us.fujitsu.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2005 12:41 PM
> *To:* 'Breininger, Kathryn R'; James Bryce Clark; 
> chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules
>
>  
>
> +1
>
>  
>
> Mike DeNicola
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* Breininger, Kathryn R [mailto:kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com]
>     *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2005 3:19 PM
>     *To:* James Bryce Clark; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>     *Subject:* RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules
>
>     For those TCs such as ours (ebXML Registry TC) which meet every
>     two weeks, a business trip or a vacation can easily trip the
>     current 2 out of 3 requirement.  I feel 3 out of 4 would be
>     appropriate, and providing for an automatic reinstatement once
>     attendance requirements are met would save additional
>     administrative tasks (reapplication, changing status back to
>     voting member).
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     *Kathryn Breininger*
>     Boeing Library Services
>     425-965-0182 phone
>
>          
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         *From:* Sabo, John T [mailto:John.T.Sabo@ca.com]
>         *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2005 7:50 AM
>         *To:* James Bryce Clark; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>         *Subject:* RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules
>
>         Steve Hanna and I believe that it would be best to relax the
>         attendance requirement to 3 out of 4, and to provide
>         for automatic reinstatement once the  required attendance has
>         been re-met. 
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         John T. Sabo, CISSP
>         Director, Security and Privacy Initiatives
>         Computer Associates International
>         2291 Wood Oak Drive
>         Herndon, Virginia, 20171
>         USA
>         Phone: +1 703-708-3037
>         Mobile: +1 443-629-6198
>         ------------------------------------
>         This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended
>         recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
>         information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
>         distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
>         recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
>         destroy all copies of the original message.
>
>          
>
>          
>
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         *From:* James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
>         *Sent:* Friday, June 03, 2005 9:20 AM
>         *To:* chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>         *Subject:* [chairs] TC attendance rules
>
>             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
>

-- 
Mark Little
Chief Architect
Arjuna Technologies Ltd
(www.arjuna.com)