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

Joe Andrieu joe at switchbook.com
Thu Oct 15 11:41:43 EDT 2009


Robin,

I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the proposed process. The 
two consecutive calls refers only to the trigger for a chair to change 
someone's status to non-voting.  There isn't a symmetrical requirement 
to be present at two meetings before getting the status back. At least 
in my understanding. If someone could correct that, I'd appreciate it.

What I think we don't want to happen is for a member to show up 
expecting to be able to vote and have the chair determine that they 
aren't eligible. That would exacerbate what would already be a 
contentious situation.

-j

On 10/15/2009 7:57 AM, Robin Wilton wrote:
> Well, I too couldn't make the call yesterday, but I am proceeding on the
> basis that shifting someone to /non/-voting status is a step taken at
> the Chair's discretion.
>
> In P3WG's case, I want to preserve the voting rights of those members
> for whom the weekly conf call is not a practical participation option.
> While I may not expect them to attend conf calls, I will expect them to
> take alternative steps to ensure they are abreast of the group's
> discussions (and will expect the group to take adequate steps to ensure
> that that is a reasonable expectation...). Provided that is the case, I
> would, as Chair, expect the discretion to accept those members' votes on
> that basis, and therefore without requiring the "2 consecutive calls"
> requirement to be met.
>
> If the Chair has that discretion then I don't have any particular issue
> regarding the current wording.
>
> Yrs.,
> Robin
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

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


More information about the LC mailing list