[KI-LC] Comments on the "Quorum Issue"
Cahill, Conor P
conor.p.cahill at intel.com
Wed Jul 15 13:06:34 PDT 2009
I think that we can take a number of actions in a meeting that doesn't have a quorum and then do a single vote to the voting membership asking them to approve the work of the non-quorate ?sp? meeting rather than having to ask them to vote on each action.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-
> bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of J. Trent Adams
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:41 PM
> To: Eve Maler; Roger.Martin at corp.aol.com
> Cc: Leadership Council
> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Comments on the "Quorum Issue"
> Eve - I agree with you and Roger on the least invasive approach. Email
> ballots also help support the time zone challenged.
> Roger - Why do we need a resolution to "initiate votes"? Doesn't the
> "motion + second" process effectively set the voting ball in motion?
> For example, take the case where quorum is not reached in the meeting.
> Someone puts forth a motion to vote on something requiring quorum and
> is seconded. From there, I'd assume that the vote automatically goes
> the discussion list as per OP 2.6.
> What else do you suggest we need?
> To identity and beyond,
> Trent "Buzz" Adams
> Eve Maler wrote:
> > Thanks, Roger, for relenting!
> > My preference between the options you list is for the less invasive
> > one: establishing rules for getting work initiated in the absence of
> > quorum. But I could be convinced otherwise.
> > By the way, minutes for today's meeting are now up; all, please note
> > well the various action items:
> > Eve
> > On 15 Jul 2009, at 10:03 AM, Roger Martin wrote:
> >> To: Leadership Council
> >> I have relented from my position that I was simply lurking and would
> >> not volunteer to address the quorum issue raised on today's LC call
> >> and offer the following comments for the LC's consideration.
> >> The concern that was raised is that as more WGs are chartered and
> >> number of voting members of the LC becomes larger, it will become
> >> increasingly difficult to conduct business because the LC will not
> >> able to gather a quorum of voting members on many calls. This
> >> "Quorum Brick Wall" could prove to be a very serious impediment to
> >> getting work done (as it has in technical groups in the past in
> >> organizations).
> >> After investigating this, I think I have good news.
> >> _
> >> _Section 3.3 (2nd paragraph) of the Kantara Initiative Bylaws states:
> >> "/Except when otherwise specified in these Bylaws and other
> >> Controlling Documents, approval requires a Simple Majority
> >> (greater than 50%) of those voting when a Quorum exists./"
> >> Section 2.6 (2nd paragraph) of the Kantara Initiative Operating
> >> Procedures states:
> >> /"A majority of the voting members of the LC shall constitute a
> >> quorum. _*Actions taken in the absence of a quorum*_ shall be
> >> confirmed by electronic ballot of all voting members of the
> >> LC."/ (emphasis added)
> >> This permits the LC to initiate business without the presence of a
> >> quorum, but requires an electronic ballot to approve any business if
> >> a quorum is not present.
> >> Since Section 2.6 does not provide further guidance, I recommend
> >> the LC make clear how it will operate when a quorum is not present
> >> passing a resolution to establish the threshold number of voting
> >> members that must be present for an LC meeting to be able to
> >> votes. This resolution should be passed either at an LC meeting
> >> where a quorum is present or via an electronic ballot. In my
> >> it does not require a change to the Bylaws or Operating Procedures.
> >> If you do not wish to do take the above action, a workable
> >> alternative would be the one that Conor suggested on today's call --
> >> Establish a rule to place LC members in non-voting status for
> >> to attend (and not be counted in the Quorum and votes-needed
> >> totals). This rule must include a "simple/easy" way to be
> >> re-instated as a voting member. To do this will require a change to
> >> the Operating Procedures since the Operating Procedures (section 2.1)
> >> includes the following statement: "/WG Chairs (or Alternate) are
> >> voting members of the LC./"
> >> Footnote: The Kantara Initiative Bylaws defines four (4) types of
> >> majority:
> >> * Simple Majority (<50% of those voting)
> >> vs Majority (>50% of _all_ voting members)
> >> * Supermajority of those Voting (<=75% of those voting) vs
> >> Supermajority (<=75% of all voting members).
> >> ..... RogerM
> >> /--
> >> ******************************************
> >> Roger Martin, Treasurer, Kantara Initiative
> >> AOL
> >> 22260 Pacific Blvd 41A:A03
> >> Dulles, VA 20166
> >> email: roger.martin at corp.aol.com
> >> AIM: rjmartin99
> >> phone: 703-265-6203
> >> mobile: 703-389-1547
> >> *******************************************/
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LC mailing list
> >> LC at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
> > Eve Maler eve.maler @
> > Emerging Technologies Director cell +1 425 345
> > Sun Microsystems Identity Software
> > <http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > LC mailing list
> > LC at kantarainitiative.org
> J. Trent Adams
> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
> Internet Society
> e) adams at isoc.org
> o) 703-439-2149
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
More information about the LC