RE: [802SEC] idea on new rules for membership in startup WGs
Roger, from what you have below, it looks like people could get voting rights at (3). At that point, there are attendees who have satisfied the minimum requirement of having attended one interim and one plenary when the next plenary starts.
Therefore, I don't understand why your normal sequence assumes the first memberhips are attained at (5) rather than (3). Also, the third (or perhaps fourth because there often will be an interim meeting before plenary #0) is a reasonable time for people to expect the group to have a formal membership established.
Also, please consider whether something needs to be said about quorum for the interims before voting membership is established. Maybe it doesn't as we have been allowing interims already before the initial working group plenary, but we do have a quorum requirement for Working Group interims in our rules and it isn't at all clear what the meaning is of a quorum when you have no members.
>> 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.