RE: [802SEC] +++SEC EMAIL BALLOT+++ Email Ballot: Motion for WG Initial membership interpretation
I vote DISAPPROVE.
I am unhappy with the ways the rules are broken and I
think we should fix them.
I do not believe that we should issue an interpretation
that supports (or can be interpreted as supporting)
the existing "first meeting rule" (since the rules also
can be interpreted as having all of those members lose
voting rights right away for lack of having attended 2
of the last 4 plenaries ... which latter rule I also
think doesn't "age" members off the voting rolls fast
enough in "normal" circumstances).
I believe that, when a SG has existed and done work, then
participation in the SG work preceding a WG should be *required*
to gain voting rights at the initial session of a WG and
people should not "magically" gain voting rights by being
sponsored to sit in a meeting (or even a series of meetings
over the course of one week). Votes should not be that cheap
and people with no background knowledge or demonstration of
committment to forwarding the work should not be able to just
walk in off the street and "poof" be voters.
Finally, the "time constant" for losing voting rights should
be symetrical with that for gaining them (significantly shorter
than it is now).
If people are not committed enough to attend the majority of
sessions, they shouldn't have voting rights. Not to hold
myself up as a shining example or anything, but I haven't missed
a single session since we were in La Jolla in July, even before
I became a TAG chair and member of the SEC. And I see the same
people virtually EVERY time, doing the work. Chair's discretion
can be used in the rare situations where an individual who is a
true contributor cannot for some legitimate, extraordinary
reason attend for a brief stretch that would otherwise cause a
loss of voting rights.