[KI-LC] WG reclassifications of participants as non-voting

Eve Maler eve at xmlgrrl.com
Sun Sep 13 09:16:38 PDT 2009

These are all great observations, and this is exactly why I was  
wondering if we should "reify" the non-voting status somehow, or at  
least be clearer in the rules about the consequences.  (If important  
votes are scheduled for a particular future telecon, this can be  
broadcast to all participants so that non-voting participants can  
choose to show up, get their status changed immediately, and register  
their votes; obviously if important votes are going to be done  
electronically instead, they can be started *after* one more telecon  
goes by, again allowing non-voters to get back in the game.) Your  
point about the lack of clarity in the "occur" language is one we  
should discuss this coming week as an OP issue.  So far, FWIW, I can  
report that the non-voting thing is going great in the UMA group.


On 12 Sep 2009, at 8:21 PM, Bob Pinheiro wrote:

> 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.
> Bob
> ---------------------------
> Bob Pinheiro
> Chair, Consumer Identity WG
> 908-654-1939
> kantara at bobpinheiro.com
> www.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.
>> FWIW,
>>     Eve
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> From: Eve Maler <eve at xmlgrrl.com>
>>> Date: 8 September 2009 9:30:34 AM PDT
>>> 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 (http://is.gd/32ilF 
>>> ):
>>> "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 attending.)
>>> 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,
>>>     Eve
>>>     UMA WG chair
>>>     http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/uma/Home
>> Eve Maler
>> eve at xmlgrrl.com
>> http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>> lc_kantarainitiative.org

Eve Maler
eve at xmlgrrl.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc_kantarainitiative.org/attachments/20090913/c2eb8503/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the LC mailing list