Re: [ubl-csc] TC attendance and quorums

[Jon Bosak <Jon.Bosak@sun.com>]

[Eve:]

| >    a. Put them on your SC mail list.
| 
| Sigh, I've been particularly bad at this.

Not as bad as I have.  That's why I want to make the addition of
new members a one-shot low-overhead deal with nothing really
critical to remember after the initial contact.

| >    c. Persons who have been members of a UBL subcommittee for 60
| >       days or more when this resolution is approved but are not at
| >       that time members of the UBL TC shall be added to the TC
| >       membership immediately upon approval of this resolution.
| 
| Not that this will be a big deal in practice, but doesn't this attempt 
| to override a standing OASIS rule about how long prospective members 
| must wait?

I think it's fair to assume that anyone who joined an SC under the
old rules would have applied to join the TC if joining the TC had
been a requirement for joining the SC.  (In fact, there are a
couple of people who *did* apply to join the TC, and I urged them
to just join an SC instead if they couldn't actually attend the TC
meetings.)  I checked this interpretation with Karl Best, and he
agrees.

| >    d. Nonvoting observers can be added to the UBL TC mailing list
| >       at the discretion of the TC chair or vice chair.  Nonvoting
| >       observers can be added to any UBL subcommittee mailing list
| >       at the discretion of the chair of that subcommittee.
| 
| s/can/may/g  (substitute throughout the whole wording; I won't comment 
| on it again)

Thanks; will do.

| Shouldn't we restrict this to PEOTCPs (OASIS members)?

I've been told that it's OK to add a very limited number of
non-OASIS members as invited observers.  But we have to be really
careful about this.  The criteria that make sense to me are: (a)
this person has to be someone we really want on the list, and (b)
they wouldn't do it if we required OASIS membership.  (For
example, I actually have one observer on the LSC list whose
employment prohibits him from joining OASIS or anything like it.)

I like the wording I proposed above because it allows us to add
people to lists right when they apply and then sort out voting
later.  In the great majority of cases these would be prospective
members who are waiting for their 60 days to time out.  I made an
attempt to write this so that it covered exactly that case while
also allowing for certain edge cases, but the language got so
complicated that I gave up.

| >    g. Voting members of a subcommittee can be removed from that
| >       subcommittee only by resignation or by resolution of the TC.
| >       Extended failure to respond to email queries from the
| >       subcommittee chair or TC chair shall be considered
| >       equivalent to resignation.
| 
| This is a bit subjective, but probably fine in practice.

Otherwise you get caught in a catch-22 where someone has changed
employers and can no longer be reached to prompt for a
resignation.

| >	A TC meeting that is
| >       quorate during the dial-in period shall be considered
| >       quorate for the duration of the call.  Observers shall be
| >       allowed to call in to TC meetings only by invitation of the
| >       TC chair or vice chair.
| 
| I'm not sure I understand the part about the duration of quorate-ness 
| (?).  Does this need to be here?  Is it attempting to override RROR when 
| it comes to consdering the meeting quorate until someone does a quorum 
| call and you discover you're not quorate anymore?

Yes.  I'm specifically worried about dropped cell phone
connections and the insanity of trying to track how many people
are on the call at any one instant while also trying to run a live
plenary.  I just want to take roll at the beginning of the call
and have that considered the state of affairs for the duration of
the call.  No one has more respect for the late General Robert
than I, but I doubt that he ever had to handle dial-ins to a
face-to-face meeting.

| >    b. When subcommittees are meeting between plenary sessions of a
| >       UBL TC meeting, and in any regularly scheduled and noticed
| >       UBL TC meeting that fails to achieve a quorum, the UBL
| 
| Why not use "inquorate" here as you do below?

Oh, I dunno.  I guess I'm still getting over the fact that I
thought it was "nonquorate."  I'll change it.

| >    c. The voting members assembled at a regularly scheduled and
| >       noticed but inquorate TC meeting shall be authorized to
| >       operate as an ad hoc subcommittee of the whole, chaired by
| >       the chair of the TC or, in his absence, the vice chair of
| >       the TC, and shall be authorized to formulate proposed
| >       resolutions for the chair's consideration in issuing email
| >       ballots.
| 
| I actually don't think this provision is needed.  Since the chair is the 
| final arbiter of email resolutions, can't anyone (even non-OASIS 
| members) suggest ballot ideas to the chair?

You're right; let's lose the last independent clause, at least.
But I still feel the need for something that authorizes us to
proceed under our regular rules as some kind of committee even if
we're not quorate as the TC itself.  Is this OK if we chop it
before "and shall be authorized to formulate" &c.?

Jon