[KI-LC] LC membership roster
Eve.Maler at Sun.COM
Wed Jul 15 15:21:09 PDT 2009
Good feedback. Some responses and questions (note that your item
numbering somehow got messed up in my reply):
On 15 Jul 2009, at 1:50 PM, Roger Martin wrote:
> The Kantara Initiative Operating Procedures, Section 2.1 states:
> "Membership of the Leadership Council includes the Chairs (or
> designee) of each LC authorized Work Group (WG) and Discussion Group
> In my opinion, it is not the individual, but the Group that holds a
> seat on the LC. It is by virtue of the position held (Chair) in a
> Group that an individual is designated to represent that Group on
> the LC. As a result, I think that the Roster should be sorted by
> Group, not by individual, with each Group having a separate line in
> the roster.
Combined with your third point below, this makes a pretty good case,
though it's unfortunate because a group-primary table is harder for
roll-calls, determining quorum at the start of a call, and voting,
which to my mind are the main use cases for maintaining the roster...
I could always include a "to be determined" row for any group that
hasn't yet picked an LC rep.
(What about the case when the same person chairs -- or otherwise
serves as the LC designee for -- multiple groups? We said today that
this person only gets one vote; is that right? I can't find any
explicit guidance in the Operating Procedures, but since the phrase
"voting member" refers to a human being, I assume our interpretation
is correct: Iain is one voting member, not two; Kenji is one voting
member, not two; etc. The issue isn't an anomaly; we can expect some
people to be involved in multiple Kantara efforts, given the emphasis
on harmonization and liaisons.)
> I am not aware that any specific time limit was set on the
> "grandfathered in" period, but clearly the intent was for that to be
> in effect only during the start-up of Kantara Initiative to allow us
> to bootstrap the LC into an efficiently functioning body. In my
> opinion, the LC should make a determination on when the "start-up
> period" ends by setting a deadline for when the grandfathered Groups
> must be officially chartered. My personal opinion is that after
> that deadline any grandfathered Group that does not have an approved
> charter should be placed in non-voting status until its charter is
This sounds reasonable to me. Obviously we're functioning somewhat
smoothly by this point, having been successfully bootstrapped.
Something like 45 days out from our next meeting would seem fair, to
give time for (a) such a policy to be approved and (b) the additional
charters to be written and accepted soon after the policy approval,
with the full 30 days still allowed after that for charter review and
approval. And then we're well positioned to go into the budgeting phase.
> Generically, given my comments in 1 above, a chartered WG must, in
> the case of co-chairs, designate who will be the voting
> representative of that WG to the LC. If a WG is chartered, but does
> not have a voting representative designated, then the WG would be
> included in the roster of voting members, but would not be able to
> vote until a voting representative is designated. Note that this
> would have a negative impact on calculating quorum.
Yeah, excellent point. Still, see my last best attempt above to keep
the name-primary organization...
> Going back to the issue regarding determination of quorum, it should
> be remembered that the WG Chair may designate an alternate. This
> could be handled in at least two different ways: (1) have the Group
> Chair designate an alternate and list that person in the roster, or
> (2) permit the Chair to simply notify the LC Chair (or Secretary)
> prior to any meeting that a designated alternate will be
> representing the WG at the next LC meeting. The LC could choose a
> method or could leave this ambiguous. My recommendation is that
> this should be clarified so the Groups know how to handle it.
Good idea. My feeling is that, if the chair normally serves as the LC
rep but has to miss a meeting, there's nothing wrong with sending an
email to the LC mailing list indicating who the "rep pro tem" will be
for that meeting. And a simple email could likewise indicate a longer-
(I will endeavor to link to the email archives from the roster listing
to substantiate any such long-term arrangements...)
> With regard to counting quorum using all members or just voting
> members....quorum is based on the voting members, not all members
> (see Operating Procedures, section 2.6)
> "A majority of the voting members of the LC shall constitute a
Got it; change made.
Eve Maler eve.maler @ sun.com
Emerging Technologies Director cell +1 425 345 6756
Sun Microsystems Identity Software www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC