[KI-LC] WG reclassifications of participants as non-voting
kantara at bobpinheiro.com
Sat Sep 12 20:21:16 PDT 2009
I have a couple of concerns I'd like to raise.
For a participant classified as non-voting, the only potential
consequence of this status would seem to be that the participant would
not be able to cast an electronic vote if he/she were in a non-voting
status when the electronic ballot was distributed. I say "potential"
because it depends on how "occurs" is defined in Section 3.7 of the
Operating Procedures: "/In the case of an electronic vote of the WG, if
the electronic vote occurs while a Participant is in non-voting status,
the Participant may not vote in that electronic vote/." If an
electronic vote "occurs" at the single point in time when the electronic
ballot is distributed to participants, then Eve's interpretation is
correct and participants in a non-voting status at that time would not
be able to vote. But since a certain period of time is allowed for
these votes to be submitted, it could be argued that the electronic vote
can "occur" at any point during this time. Hence, the non-voting member
would only need to attend a meeting prior to the end of the voting
period in order to be able to vote.
There would appear to be no consequences at all in the case of votes
held during a meeting, since the non-voting participant merely needs to
attend the meeting (thereby restoring voting status) and would
presumably be able to vote.
So in the worst case, non-voting status would only affect a participant
in terms of not being able to cast electronic votes, but seemingly would
have no practical affect for votes taken during a meeting. I'm not sure
there's any rationale for treating electronic votes any differently than
votes taken during a meeting, so this may need to be revisited.
Another issue is that, as the number of WGs increase, and people decide
to join multiple groups, it may become burdensome for a given person to
attend all the scheduled meetings. So people may find themselves
becoming non-voting participants in those WGs they attend lightly.
An additional point is that, if we are going to have participants
classified as non-voting, it might be better if the criteria could
instead reflect some measure of their actual participation in the WG,
rather than just their attendance at meetings. Of course, being
classified as non-voting is at the discretion of the Chair, so if the
participant is contributing via emails etc, but just can't attend the
conference calls, the Chair doesn't have to declare the participant as
non-voting. Still, since we are looking for a policy across all WGs,
perhaps this should be formalized in some way.
I think the challenge is to find a way to sanction participants who
don't actually participate while at the same time encouraging greater
participation by all. Unfortunately I won't be able to attend DIDW to
help work this out.
Chair, Consumer Identity WG
kantara at bobpinheiro.com
Eve Maler wrote:
> Hello WG chairs,
> In the UMA WG, I've just gone through the first instance of an
> exercise that a lot of us (and our designated secretaries) will be
> going through: reclassifying voting participants as non-voting due to
> lack of attendance. Maybe we can get a rhythm going to handle this in
> the same way for all WGs.
> My plan is to do this every Tuesday along with constructing my meeting
> agenda, two days before the Thursday UMA calls, to give the KI staff
> time to revise the UMA roster page. Below you can see the boilerplate
> message I've developed; please let me know if you see improvements
> that can be made, or if I've gotten any procedural details wrong.
> This time I had to do 13 reclassifications! (The UMA group has held
> five meetings; I could have done this sooner, but was still feeling my
> way around the rules...) Hopefully I'll have this under better
> control in future.
> Begin forwarded message:
>> From: Eve Maler <eve at xmlgrrl.com>
>> Date: 8 September 2009 9:30:34 AM PDT
>> To: @@PARTICIPANTEMAIL
>> Cc: staff at kantarainitiative.org
>> Subject: UMA WG reclassification as non-voting participant
>> Dear @@NAME:
>> According to Section 3.7 of the Kantara operating procedures
>> "For the purpose of maintaining a reasonable ability to achieve
>> Quorum, any Participant in a WG who fails to attend two consecutive
>> meetings of the WG may, at the discretion of the Chair, be
>> re-classified as a non-voting member. Voting member status may be
>> reacquired by attending a meeting of the WG. In the case of an
>> electronic vote of the WG, if the electronic vote occurs while a
>> Participant is in non-voting status, the Participant may not vote in
>> that electronic vote."
>> As Chair of the UMA Work Group, I am classifying you as a non-voting
>> member because you have not attended the last two meetings (@@DATE1
>> and @@DATE2). You can reinstate your voting privileges at any time
>> simply by attending a meeting, and can vote on any motion in that
>> meeting or in any electronic ballot started after that meeting. (You
>> may be reclassified as non-voting again in the future if you stop
>> Whether as a voting participant or as a non-voting participant, you
>> retain mailing list posting privileges, and your continued input on
>> UMA work is welcomed. Your current voting status will be recorded on
>> the UMA WG roster (http://is.gd/32iVw); changes may take up to two
>> business days to be reflected.
>> If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
>> Best regards,
>> UMA WG chair
> Eve Maler
> eve at xmlgrrl.com
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC