Re: [802SEC] Proposed Alternative to changing the rules for WG membership
At 11:58 23/09/2002 -0400, Robert D. Love wrote:
>Here is an interesting alternative to the proposed SEC motion to change the
>rules for membership in the working group. Based on the negative comments
>expressed so far it may be easier to more directly address the problem of
>voting members that no longer are reachable or care to respond to WG email
>requests.
>
>Add to the bylaws the ability of a WG prior to an electronic ballot to send
>out an email request to all voting members to respond if they wish to be
>included in the Working Group ballot pool for the upcoming Working Group
>Ballot. The Email request to participate in the ballot pool would have to
>be open for at least 30 days and close prior to the close of electronic
>balloting. Whoever responds to neither the request to be in the ballot
>pool, nor the ballot itself, would be dropped from the ballot pool. In this
>way no voters that respond to the ballot or to the request would be dropped.
>I believe that getting a quorum for voting would be far simpler if such a
>process were instituted.
>
>Along with this motion we may also want to add words that it is the WG
>participants responsibility to maintain accurate email contact information.
Bob -
I think you've massively missed the point. The proponents of the rule
change seem to be primarily concerned with achieving quorums at interim
meetings. I haven't so far heard difficulty in closing WG ballots being
cited as one of the reasons for doing this.
Regards,
Tony