RE: [rights] Request for Agenda Item on Rights Concall Wed Octobe r 2

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

Title: RE: [rights] Request for Agenda Item on Rights Concall Wed October 2

First of all, I would like to apologise for the abbreviated ending to the debate on the Fair Voting rule. I was trying to accomodate both the folks who wanted a vote and the folks  who wanted to end the call. In particular, I did not give my reasons for not wanting to drop the advance notice.

 

First, my most important reason does not have to with attending or not attending the meeting. It has to do with having time to understand the issue, research it, debate it on the email list, discuss it within my company, etc. While I agree with Thomas that it is reasonable to expect members to attend most meetings, it is not reasonable to expect that everyone on the TC is sufficiently familiar with every issue to be able to make a considered decision on a few minutes notice. Note that this is not an academic concern. The agenda for the meeting of Sept 18 was published just a few minutes before the call and contained no mention of any vote. The meeting went over an hour with no mention of any vote, suddenly (after I had dropped off because of another commitment) a vote was taken on a major issue of requirements.

 

As far as attendance goes, I can say that even if I was traveling on business, if I knew a major issue was to be voted on I would try to change my flight time or arrange a layover, whereas I would not incur this type of expense if the meeting was only to be a discussion I could catch up on later.

 

I am willing to consider reducing the advance notice from 7 days. 48 hours seems a little short. How about 5 days? That is the same as the email voting procedure.

 

As far as distinguishing major from minor issues, I believe we can do this in practice. My motion contains examples of major issues. Minor issues would be things like accepting the minutes. If there is honest disagreement as to whether something is major or not, we can always move it to an email vote. I don't like the idea of allowing surprise votes to be carried if there are no objections. I prefer to maintain the distinction between major or minor.

 

In summary, I think this rule is a fair attempt to accomodate the realities of participating in standards process. I am not trying to change the number of votes required for a decision or impede progress on routine matters. I don't see how the ability to have unannounced votes on critical issues is beneficial to anyone.

 

Hal

-----Original Message-----
From: DeMartini, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 2:47 PM
To: 'Anne Anderson '; 'rights@lists.oasis-open.org '   
Subject: RE: [rights] Request for Agenda Item on Rights Concall Wed Octobe r 2

I think if business travel is going to interfere in such a way that a person can't make the meeting, then knowing the motions ahead of time is not going to change that that much.  (I know in some cases it makes a difference whether you are going to decide to get up at 3:00 am to make a call or not, as I will have to do for the next call, but I think that is a decision I can make with or without knowing what is coming up on the agenda.)

I don't think this is a problem unique to our TC, rather a problem that is the same for any organization that follows Roberts Rules, and I think that the time-tested balance of interests is already taken care of there with notions of meetings and quorums and whatnot.  I am very hesitant to spend my time re-writing Roberts Rules (yes, I know they allow for that).

I do think, though, that it makes sense for people to request, as a courtousy, that if major motions are known before the meeting that they be made by e-mail before-hand, but I think adopting a rule for such as a requirement is too strict.  This way, if a motion does come up, for instance out of discussion at the meeting, people can decide what to do with it: vote on it then, postpone it till the next meeting, or put it to e-mail vote, depending on a rational assessment of the nature of that particular motion on a case-by-case basis and taking into consideration whether it would have been reasonable to make the motion by e-mail beforehand and whether such was in fact done or not.  (Note that limiting discussion to vote right then and there or putting it to e-mail vote both require a 2/3 vote by Roberts Rules, where postponing it till the next meeting requires only a majority vote.)

Thanks,
Thomas.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Anderson
To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: 10/3/2002 6:38 AM
Subject: RE: [rights] Request for Agenda Item on Rights Concall Wed October 2

-----Thomas DeMartini writes---->
> * A one-hour meeting every other week is not an unreasonable time
>   commitment.
> * Since everyone should reasonably be able to commit this time as
>   part of their schedule, there should be no problem for motions
>   made during such meetings for vote at those meetings, and there
>   should be no need to have motions made ahead of time.

Unfortunately, other business, such as business travel, can
interfere with even reasonable commitments.  OASIS rules provide
for this:
     
(i).  A member shall be warned by mail from the chair of the TC
      upon their first failure to attend two out of every three
      successive meetings of the TC. Membership shall be
      terminated if the member fails to attend the next meeting
      following transmittal of the warning or if the member
      consistently fails to attend two of every three meetings.

(ii). A member shall be warned by mail from the chair of the TC
      upon failure to return 80 percent of all mail ballots
      closing during any 90-day period. Membership shall be
      terminated if the member fails to return 80 percent of all
      mail ballots closing during the 90 days following
      transmittal of the warning.

So I am not persuaded by this argument, and I stick with either
Hal's motion or with a motion to have ALL votes by e-mail.

Other advantages to e-mail votes are:
1) The motion itself must be presented in writing.  This means it
   is more likely to be understood when people are voting.
2) The votes themselves are clear and public.

Anne
--
Anne H. Anderson             Email: Anne.Anderson@Sun.COM
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
1 Network Drive,UBUR02-311     Tel: 781/442-0928
Burlington, MA 01803-0902 USA  Fax: 781/442-1692

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>