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

J. Trent Adams adams at isoc.org
Thu Oct 15 17:11:21 EDT 2009


Bob -

Consider the following scenarios:

Scenario A:

 1. Alice goes to non-voting status.
 2. Some time later Alice joins a call.
 3. Alice requests and is reactivated as a voter.
 4. Motion A is put on the table.
 5. Alice can vote in Motion A.

Scenario B:

 1. Ben goes to non-voting status.
 2. Ben requests and is reactivated as a voter.
 3. Some time later an e-vote is sent out for Ballot B.
 3. Ben can vote in Ballot B.

Scenario C:

 1. Charlie goes to non-voting status.
 2. Some time later Charlie joins a call.
 3. Motion C is put on the table.
 4. Charlie requests and is reactivated as a voter.
 5. Charlie can not vote in Motion C.

Scenario D:

 1. Denise goes to non-voting status.
 2. Some time later an e-vote is sent out for Ballot D.
 3. Denise requests and is reactivated as a voter.
 4. Denis can not vote in Ballot D.

I believe that these are all consistent.  Only those who have previously
professed an interest should be allowed to vote for a motion when it is
called.

I do not believe that someone should be allowed to join the voting rolls
in either a meeting or electronic vote after the motion is on the table
(or ballot goes out).

I do not support a change to OP 6.2.

- Trent


Bob Pinheiro wrote:
> If the voting roll is locked upon the call for votes, this would mean
> that the criteria for who is allowed to vote in an electronic/email
> ballot would be different from the eligibility criteria for voice
> votes taken during meetings/calls.   I don't think anyone has put
> forth a rationale for why the voting criteria should be different for
> voice votes versus electronic votes.
>
> According to the Operating Procedures, "/Voting status may be
> reacquired by attending a meeting of the LC."  /Voting status must
> therefore be reacquired at the *beginning* of the meeting, to be
> consistent with Section 3.7, which says that "/all Participants
> present at a WG meeting are voting members of the WG/."
>
> So any member in non-voting status can vote on a measure during a
> meeting/call merely by showing up for the meeting, regardless of
> previous voting status.  On the other hand, the OP dictates that
> someone in non-voting status when an electronic vote is called would
> not be able to vote, period.
>
> If voting status can be reacquired merely by casting a roll-call vote
> during a meeting (since attendance at the meeting restores voting
> status), shouldn't it be just as easy to reacquire voting status for
> casting an electronic vote?
>
> Why not just allow any member to cast an electronic vote, regardless
> of previous status?  Since there is effectively is no prohibition
> against roll-call voice voting based on previous status, the same
> ought to hold true for electronic votes.
>
> This would necessitate a change to Section 6.2, which requires that
> "the ballot must state both the minimum number of votes that must be
> cast and the percentage of “yes” votes required for approval of the
> measure."  I don't quite understand why this provision is necessary. 
> Why do voters need to know this when casting their ballots?  The
> validity of the electronic vote will be determined after the voting
> period is over and the "new" number of voting members is determined by
> adding the number of previous voting members to the number of previous
> non-voting members now casting a vote.
>
> BTW, I raised some of these issues in an email to this list
> <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/2009-September/000446.html>
> on Sept. 12.
>
> Bob P.
>
>
> Salzberg, Kenneth M wrote:
>> I agree it is an issue in the operating procedures.
>> My own opinion is that having the voting members undefined during an electronic ballot is NOT a good idea and agree with the provision you call out (that is 6.2 should not be changed).
>>
>> Ken Salzberg,  Technology Manager
>> Integrated Platforms Research, Intel Labs
>> ken.salzberg at intel.com   503.264.8276   JF2-58
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: J. Trent Adams [mailto:adams at isoc.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:49 AM
>> To: Salzberg, Kenneth M
>> Cc: LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Strawman language for amending the motion to amend the Operating Procedures
>>
>> Ken -
>>
>> Assuming there's nothing in the Bylaws, should we be concerned about
>> section 6.2 in the Operating Procedures?
>>
>> -----
>> * The ballot must state both the minimum number of votes that must be
>> cast and the percentage of “yes” votes required for approval of the measure.
>> -----
>>
>> If we don't know the number of voting members prior to sending out the
>> call for votes (in order to calculate the number of "yes" votes
>> required), we'd probably need to change this provision.
>>
>> IMO - I would prefer that the voting roll be locked upon the call for
>> votes, rather than allowing people to opt back in 48-hours prior to the
>> close of the ballot.
>>
>> - Trent
>>
>>
>> Salzberg, Kenneth M wrote:
>>   
>>> Took a quick look at the by-laws and I did not see anything that would need to be changed.  The execution policy of the electronic ballot is left open and would make sense to define in the Operating Procedures if required.
>>>
>>> Ken Salzberg,  Technology Manager
>>> Integrated Platforms Research, Intel Labs
>>> ken.salzberg at intel.com   503.264.8276   JF2-58
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of J. Trent Adams
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:13 AM
>>> To: LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] Strawman language for amending the motion to amend the Operating Procedures
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> --
>>> J. Trent Adams
>>> =jtrentadams
>>>
>>> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
>>> Internet Society
>>> http://www.isoc.org
>>>
>>> e) adams at isoc.org
>>> o) 703-439-2149
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LC mailing list
>>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> --
>> J. Trent Adams
>> =jtrentadams
>>
>> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
>> Internet Society
>> http://www.isoc.org
>>
>> e) adams at isoc.org
>> o) 703-439-2149
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>   
>  

-- 
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