[KI-LC] Charter Approval Process Proposal
bob at bobpinheiro.com
Fri May 29 16:28:43 PDT 2009
From Step 13 below: "/Ratification requires a simple majority of the
Not to be picky, but the Bylaws define a Simple Majority as "/more than
50% of all those casting a vote (excluding abstentions)./" [Not 50% of
the full LC]
From Section 5.3 of the Bylaws: "/Approval for the formation of a Work
Group requires approval of the Work Group Charter by a Simple Majority
vote of the Leadership Council./"
So I'd propose replacing Step 13 with "/Ratification requires a Simple
Majority vote of the Leadership Council./" [Meaning more than 50% of
Also, just to be clear, I'd propose changing Step 5 to read: "/A
ratification vote date is set for no later than 30 days after
notification of the LC Secretary/." [So as to be consistent with
Section 3.1 of the Operating Procedures: "/The Leadership Council must
consider any properly submitted proposal for the creation of a Work
Group and vote on it within thirty (30) days of its submittal to the LC
Now, if a vote on a proposed charter is delayed due to a deferral (as in
Step 12), does that mean that a new vote must still be scheduled within
30 days of the original date of notification of the LC Secretary, even
if the next LC teleconference is after the 30 days? One way to be
absolutely consistent with the Operating Procedures is to "notify" the
Secretary only after the initial LC discussion takes place. That would
give the proposer 30 days to make any adjustments, if there is a
deferral. If there is an immediate vote (and no deferral), the
Secretary would be "notified" during the call, prior to the vote.
J. Trent Adams wrote:
> All -
> Following our call on Wednesday, we discussed formalizing a process for
> ratification of WG and DG charters.
> Based on the discussion, and in consideration of the Operating Policies
> (section 3.1) , I've worked up the following proposed process:
> 1. The proposed charter template is filled out and
> sent to a staffer (e.g. Joni) to make sure it is
> filled out correctly.
> 2. Once it passes staff review, the staff adds the
> proposed charter to the wiki and notifies the
> LC Secretary that it is ready for LC review.
> 3. The proposed charter is added as a topic to the
> next LC teleconference for initial discussion.
> 4. During the initial LC discussion, one of the
> LC Members volunteers to help shepherd the
> proposed charter through ratification by
> reviewing it as well as guiding the proposers
> through the process.
> NOTE: I suggest that in case no one volunteers,
> the LC Chair will (respectfully) assign it to
> one of the members as deemed appropriate.
> 5. A ratification vote date is set for no more than
> 30 days from when the charter is accepted by
> the LC.
> 6. It is written into the minutes that the charter has
> passed staff review, has been accepted for
> consideration, and the date for the ratification
> vote. The minutes should also include the
> name of the LC shepherd for the record.
> 7. The staff then announce the proposed charter
> on public web pages and discussion lists to
> solicit feedback from the broader community,
> directing comments to the proposer and to
> the named shepherd.
> 8. It is the responsibility of the shepherd to
> review the proposed charter and evaluate the
> merits of the proposed work as related to the
> Kantara Initiative mission and in the context
> of other existing work.
> NOTE: I suggest that this review period
> include close coordination between the
> shepherd and the proposer in order to
> quickly address any issues that might
> arise (e.g. similar work in other groups).
> 9. On the announced ratification date, the
> proposer of the charter joins the LC
> teleconference in which it is officially
> presented for a vote.
> 10. During the time in the agenda for voting on
> the proposed charter, the LC Chair calls for
> discussion and the shepherd presents any
> comments. The discussion is then open to the
> full LC, including participation of the proposer.
> 11. The Chair calls for a motion to either vote
> on the proposed charter immediately, or
> to defer the vote until a future date (in order
> for the proposer to address any issues
> surfaced in the discussion).
> NOTE: I interpret a "no" vote as being one
> in which the charter is rejected, and cannot
> come back for vote without substantive
> rework (i.e. it must start back at step one),
> hence my proposal for a deferral. Otherwise,
> it's possible to see that a charter could
> continually eat up procedural time that has
> zero chance of approval.
> 12. In the case of a deferral, the proposed
> charter is put back on the agenda of the
> next LC teleconference for a vote.
> NOTE: I would suggest only one deferral be
> allowed before a vote must be held for the
> same reason as the previous note.
> 13. In the case of a vote, the LC Chair calls
> for a vote of the members on the proposed
> charter and the outcome is officially recorded.
> Ratification requires a simple majority of the
> full LC.
> I'm sure there's some tweaking we should do to this process, but I like
> the concept of the LC Member Shepherd. This is similar in nature to the
> IETF process where an Area Director fills the same roll. Also, by
> publicly naming the shepherd we're able to clarify for the community who
> they should contact with comments or questions.
> What do folks think about this flow?
> - Trent
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC