Re: [802SEC] Proposed P&P Revision ballot on 'WG Membership and Meetings'
What Tony says is
how I applied the rule in the past. Non-response to ballots is a serious matter
that removes the current attendence credit and they start building membership
from that point. This is similar to the rules that apply to non-payment of
04:56 16/03/2005, Sherman, Matthew J. (US SSA) wrote:
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
Regarding the last part, the following pathological situation exists
in the rules today. I don't return 2 out of 3 ballots, so I loss my
membership. But I attend all the meetings. So if I show up at
the next plenary, I automatically regain my membership. This seems
counter the intent of the rule, so I've explicitly stated that loss of
membership results in prior attendance being discounted.
Actually that case *does not* exist in the rules
today, because they currently state that "Membership may be re-established as
if the person were a new candidate member" in this case (i.e., you re-start
building credit from scratch).
Making loss of prior attendance credit
a blanket rule for all membership loss situations means that if someone shows
up after a period of absence of a bit less than a year (intending to regularly
attend again), you can get the crazy situation where they manage to attend a
meeting just inside a year from their last attendance, but their membership is
lost say 1 month later, and even though they attend the very next session,
they lose the previous session's attendance credit.
That is totally
nuts, and if the wording stays that way, I will vote against the change, and
that is a case that I will absolutely not apply in 802.1.
So I believe
that you should revert to the previous formulation, where loss of prior
attendance credit only applies where you lose membership through failure to
meet your obligations as a member (paying your meeting dues, and responding to
ballots) - in other words, it is applied as a punitive measure for
I believe the fix here is to move the sentence "Membership
is also lost...365 day period" to the end of the paragraph, and add a sentence
indicating that any membership credit that falls within the 365-day period is
retained in this case.
I would also suggest that instead of 365 days,
we use "the span of the three most recent plenary sessions" as the time
period, and make it clear that the this rule is applied at the end of each
Plenary session, thus reducing the time to age out non-participants to 8
months rather than 12.
---------- This email is sent from the 802
Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.