[KI-LC] Strawman language for amending the motion to amend the Operating Procedures

Joe Andrieu joe at switchbook.com
Thu Oct 15 11:35:16 EDT 2009


Trent,

My apologies, at least for the first issue raised. I wasn't yet in the 
conversation when the proposal was approved by the LC, and the ambiguity 
in the language just jumped out at me.

Regarding the 48 hour language: I'm not familiar enough the bylaws to 
comment on what complications there might be.

However, I also don't have a sense of whether or not there is consensus 
for a more "on-demand" approach for electronic votes.  If there is, we 
can probably craft language that captures that intent.  If not, let's 
just clear up the ambiguity in the timing and discretion of reacquiring 
voting rights.

-j

On 10/15/2009 7:12 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
> All -
>
> Apologies for not being on the call yesterday, but here are a couple
> points that I hope were discussed:
>
>   1. The BoT approved the language that we
>       crafted (with one minor difference to the
>       term "Members").
>
>   2. Why weren't the issues raised below
>       brought up at that time before we
>       sent them to the BoT?
>
>   3. If we require any changes to be made,
>       we will be restarting the clock.  They
>       go back to the BoT for approval, then
>       back to the LC to run the all-member
>       ballot.
>
> I assume that everyone on the LC call yesterday is comfortable with the
> delays involved.  That basically means we're going from about a 7-day
> closure on this to something a month (or more) from now.
>
> Given that people are OK with the delay, I do believe that there's an
> issue needing to be addressed in the line:
>
> "... for the purposes of quorum in an electronic ballot, quorate shall
> be determined based on all members of voting status 48 hours prior to
> the close of the vote."
>
> This may necessitate a change to the Bylaws governing electronic
> voting.  Has someone already looked into this?
>
> - Trent
>
>
> Joe Andrieu wrote:
>> In today's call there were two issues brought up with the first item of
>> the motion entitled "Approval of Amendments to Operating Procedures for
>> All Member Ballot". Here is an excerpt of the relevant portion of that
>> motion:
>>
>> ====
>> The following amendments to the Kantara Initiative Operating Procedures
>> (version 1.0), as previously approved by the Board of Trustees, are
>> hereby approved by the Leadership Council for submission to an All
>> Member Ballot:
>>
>> i. Add the following text as the third paragraph in section 2.6:
>> "For the purpose of maintaining a reasonable ability to achieve Quorum,
>> any Voting Member of the LC who fails to attend two consecutive meetings
>> of the LC may, at the discretion of the Chair, be re-classified as a
>> non-voting member. Voting status may be reacquired by attending a
>> meeting of the LC. In the case of an electronic vote of the LC, if the
>> electronic vote is initiated while a member is in non-voting status, the
>> member may not vote in that electronic vote."
>> ====
>>
>>
>> I think its a fair summary to say the two issues are as follows:
>>
>> 1. Ambiguity around reacquiring voting status. The word "may" could mean
>> that the reacquisition is at the chair's discretion (similar to the loss
>> of status). The timing is also ambiguous: does the status resumes
>> immediately for that meeting?
>>
>> 2. There is a discrepancy between the ease of participating in a live
>> meeting and in an electronic one. For a live meeting, one can--upon
>> notice of the topic to be voted upon--simply show up and be counted.
>> However, the electronic vote precludes a non-voting member from a
>> similar "on-demand" participation in the vote.
>>
>>
>> For #1, there seemed to be a consensus that it would be at the member's
>> discretion, not the chair's, and that the status would be in effect for
>> the meeting at which it is reclaimed.
>>
>> For #2, there was less discussion, so perhaps we don't have consensus.
>> However, the issue itself suggests a desire to find a way to allow a
>> similar "on-demand" approach for electronic ballots.
>>
>>
>> As a strawman suggestion, here is a possible motion to amend the motion
>> currently on the table.  If there's sufficient agreement to some edited
>> version of this, we can turn it into a proper motion for the next LC
>> meeting.
>>
>> ====
>> Motion that we replace
>>
>> "Voting status may be reacquired by attending a meeting of the LC. In
>> the case of an electronic vote of the LC, if the electronic vote is
>> initiated while a member is in non-voting status, the member may not
>> vote in that electronic vote."
>>
>> with
>>
>> "Voting status shall be automatically reinstated for any non-voting
>> member by either (a) attending a meeting of the LC and electing to
>> reacquire it at the roll call of said meeting or (b) in the case of an
>> electronic vote of the LC, sending an email to the LC email list,
>> electing to reacquire voting status, no less than 48 hours prior to the
>> close of the first electronic vote for which that status would apply;
>> for the purposes of quorum in an electronic ballot, quorate shall be
>> determined based on all members of voting status 48 hours prior to the
>> close of the vote."
>>
>> ====
>>
>> That's it. The language probably needs some help, but I figured putting
>> something out there might kickstart our thinking. In particular, I'm not
>> sure if the 48 hour window matters, but it seemed like some cutoff would
>> simplify last minute quorate questions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -j
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Joe Andrieu
joe at switchbook.com
+1 (805) 705-8651
http://www.switchbook.com


More information about the LC mailing list