RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules

[Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com>]

As I understand the rules, it depends
on when the counter started for membership - you can't attend 2 out of
3 if you were only a member for 2.  
But, remember my disclaimer, I'm confused!
 
Regards, Diane
IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709

"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>

06/07/2005 09:54 PM

To	Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "James Bryce Clark" <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
cc	<chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [chairs] TC attendance rules

Surely if they attend 2 in a row, then they've attended
2 out of the last 3?
-----Original Message----- 
From: Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wed 08-Jun-05 11:52 
To: James Bryce Clark 
Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org 
Subject: Re: [chairs] TC attendance rules


I'm confused - If the rule is changed so that members lose voting privileges
if they miss 2 out of 3 meetings after a warning, when is the warning supposed
to be given and what action can be taken by the member to avoid the loss
?  Would it revert to the old rule that if they missed  2 out
of 3 and got a warning, they'd be ok if they attended the next meeting?
   It would be great, as has been noted by others, if warnings
could be generated automatically from the attendance information.  

On the second point - would a member's voting rights be reinstated after
attending 2 meetings in a row or only after 3 meetings of which they attended
2?   
Would the web tools keep track and send reminders to change voting status
as they do now for probationary members? 

I think I'd like to have the probationary status maintained - I like having
a way to identify the members who intend to obtain voting priviledges as
compared to those who are planning to stay simple members.   This
way, I can check the probationary list to make sure the attendance algorithm
is being applied correctly and advance them when appropriate.  
    
A number of chairs have discussed "excused absences" of some
sort - I don't think this is a good idea unless there is some way for the
member to register this in the attendance roster him/herself.  I don't
want to have to do bookkeeping on who has sent their apologies (and don't
want the extra apology email traffic).  On the other  hand, I
continue to believe the leave of absence rules should be liberalized to
allow for TC judgement on allowing those beyond the first per year.  Its
a more formal approach to the idea of providing more flexibility.  
  

Regards, Diane
IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709

James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>

06/03/2005 09:19 AM

To	chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
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