[KI-LC] LC membership roster

J. Trent Adams adams at isoc.org
Thu Jul 16 04:32:48 PDT 2009


Eve Maler wrote:
> 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:
>
>> Eve,
>>
>>    1. 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 (DG)"/
>>
>>       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 agree with the philosophy of "one person one vote", and I believe that
someone who chairs two groups could designate someone as the LC
representative for the second group (as per OP 2.1).  The trick (as
pointed out below) is we need to be sure we're tracking which groups
have sent their representatives to the LC (thus impacting quorum).

>>    1. 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 approved.
>>
>
> 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.

I would support a deadline for acceptance of founding charters within 4
weeks (e.g. the week of August 15th).  This provides the groups with
enough time to confer with their proposers and author the charters. 
Given the 30-day window, that'd mean they'd need to be approved by
September 14th, which is perfect timing for DIDW.  If they aren't
already approved by then, we could do so at the conference.

We should probably start circulating this specific topic as a separate
thread so people have enough time to ramp up.

>>    2. 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.
>>

I'm confused about that.  If OP 2.6 states that quorum is defined as
"greater than 50% of the voting Members", that doesn't seem to indicate
anything about Groups being involved in the count (i.e. Member = person
!= Group).  Essentially, if the Group doesn't designate a
representative, they don't have a voting Member, and thus don't impact
quorum.

Am I missing something?

> Yeah, excellent point. Still, see my last best attempt above to keep
> the name-primary organization...
>
>>    3. 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-term designee.

I agree with your feeling.  Simple email notifications are fine, as
we'll undoubtedly refine the process as we go.  If it becomes necessary
to formalize it (e.g. due to an influx of new groups requiring
guidance), we can formally codify the process at that time (perhaps
starting with a light-weight "FAQ" rather than a "Policy").

- Trent

> (I will endeavor to link to the email archives from the roster listing
> to substantiate any such long-term arrangements...)
>
>>    4. 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)
>>    5. /* "A majority of the voting members of the LC shall constitute
>>       a quorum."*/
>>
> Got it; change made.
>
> Eve
>
> Eve Maler                                          eve.maler @ sun.com
> Emerging Technologies Director                    cell +1 425 345 6756
> Sun Microsystems Identity Software                www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> <http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org
>   

-- 
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams

Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society
http://www.isoc.org

e) adams at isoc.org
o) 703-439-2149





More information about the LC mailing list