[802SEC] Re: idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
Thanks for your feedback.
>I think that the idea may have some potential; however, given that
>what you propose introduces a rather definite distinction between
>"voting" and "membership", I suspect that the impact in terms of
>changes to the rules is rather greater than you state.
There may be some other complications, but I don't think they would
be hard to address. The full rights of membership do go beyond voting
(see 220.127.116.11), so we could try to enlarge the rights of attendees in
the pre-membership period, but I think that the other rights could
easily be managed without specific P&P on the topic.
I wouldn't want to see a pre-membership WG run a letter ballot. We
should add some language to prevent the initial Chair from appointing
members by Chair's Discretion and then sending them a letter ballot.
By the way, we do have a lot of experience with the "no-members,
everyone can vote" policy, since Study Groups work that way. Note
also that we specifically forbid SGs from running letter ballots.
>For example, it would be necessary to make it clear what kinds of
>things can and can not be voted on before there are any members, to
>deal with the case where the voters at the initial meeting vote to
I think that my proposed language ("Initial appointments shall be
valid until the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or
TAG memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled
for that session.") is clear enough. It could be made more forceful,
>Also, your proposal doesn't grant any credit for study group participation.
True, and I don't think it should. Membership couldn't be granted
before the third session of the WG (or the fourth, if there are
interims between plenaries). I expect the first few sessions to be
pretty important and to take the WG a long way from its SG roots.
Someone who wants to be a member should participate in two of them.
Chair's Discretion can handle any special cases.
>Roger B. Marks writes:
>> Dear ExCom,
>> On Friday, I had some stimulating discussions with Geoff, Jerry, and
>> Mark on what would be a good set of membership rules for startup WGs.
>> Some things said during the rules debate also played a role in my
>> thinking. After reviewing the current rules again, I now have a very
>> definite idea of a set of changes that would satisfy my concerns and
>> would, I believe, also satisfy the other concerns I've heard. This
>> proposal is simple, and it is philosophically compatible with our
>> existing membership rules.
>> Here is my proposal:
>> (a) In 18.104.22.168, delete the first sentence and the following word
>> ("All persons participating in the initial meeting of the Working
>> Group become members of the Working Group. Thereafter,").
>> (b) At the end of that first paragraph of 22.214.171.124, add the following:
> > "In a new WG or TAG, all registered attendees may vote until such
> > time as the first WG or TAG memberships are established."
>> (c) In 5.1.2, change "Initial appointments, and temporary
>> appointments to fill vacancies due to resignations or removals for
>> cause, may be made by the Chair of the LMSC, and shall be valid until
>> the end of the next Plenary session" to:
>> "Initial appointments, and temporary appointments to fill vacancies
>> due to resignations or removals for cause, may be made by the Chair
>> of the LMSC. Temporary appointments shall be valid until the end of
> > the next Plenary session. Initial appointments shall be valid until
> > the end of the Plenary session in which the first WG or TAG
> > memberships are established. Officer elections shall be scheduled for
> > that session."
> > ============================================================
>> Normally, the sequence would be:
>> (1) WG initiated at Plenary #0. Interim Chair appointed.
>> (2) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>> (3) WG meets at Plenary #1. Everyone votes.
> > (4) WG holds interim session. Everyone votes.
>> (5) WG meets at Plenary #2. Membership is attained at start of
>> session by those who have participated in Plenary #1 and in one of
>> the two interims. Only those members vote. Elections are held, and
>> confirmed by EC. Elected officers assume office at end of plenary.
>> Note that this would accommodate the CS rule that "voting privileges
>> shall apply to all eligible attendees at the initial three meetings"
>> (i.e., sessions). However, participation in just one of these three
>> sessions would not suffice for membership. Membership would be earned
>> the normal way, and there would be no elections until there were
>> members. The Interim Chair appointment would become four sessions,
>> instead of two under the current rules.
>> I submit that this system could take a lot of the politics out of the
>> WG startup period, giving the group time to settle.
>> I'd appreciate your thoughts.