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

Paul Madsen paulmadsen at rogers.com
Thu Oct 15 11:47:52 EDT 2009


They become voting the moment they say 'hi' on the call 

Paul

-- Paul Madsen
Joe Andrieu wrote:

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

_______________________________________________

LC mailing list

LC at kantarainitiative.org

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20091015/c8dfa8a0/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the LC mailing list