[Council] voting procedures and Council membership

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue May 6 14:16:36 CDT 2003

If there are no objections, I propose that we follow the procedures
outlined below from now on. So:

1. JEPs pass by a simple majority +1, but -1 is a veto (essentially
   this is what we do today).

2. If you don't vote on a JEP after 10 days, your vote defaults to 0 
   but we track the fact that you did not vote.

3. If you miss three votes in a row, you may forfeit your Council 
   membership (the Council will determine if there are extenuating
   circumstances, and may retain such a member). A 3/4 majority of
   Council members is required to vote +1 on removing another member.

4. The Council shall at its discretion determine whether to fill
   any vacancies on the Council, but as a matter of policy should 
   do so if there are more than 3 months remaining in the Council's 

If you find any of this problematic, speak now.



On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:20:14PM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> In today's meeting of the Board of Directors, I raised the issue of 
> inactive Council members. The Board remanded this issue back to the
> Council. Specifically, Michael Bauer pointed me to Section 8.1 of 
> the Bylaws, which reads in part:
>   The Jabber Council shall act upon the affirmative vote of a 
>   majority of the members of the Council voting. A quorum of 
>   the Jabber Council shall be a majority of the members of the 
>   Council. The provisions of these Bylaws with regard to 
>   meetings, notice, etc. that apply to Membership meetings 
>   shall apply to the Jabber Council and members thereof unless 
>   such provisions are inconsistent with this Article VIII.
> This seems to imply the following: 
> 1. The current voting method (all Council members MUST vote) is
>    overly strict. It would be perfectly acceptable for the Council
>    to pass JEPs by a simple majority vote.
> 2. The "three strikes and you're out" rule that applies to votes of
>    the JSF membership also applies to the Council. So a Council
>    member who misses three votes in a row is subject to automatic
>    termination as defined in Section 2.6 of the Bylaws.
> In votes of the general membership, there is a defined time period 
> for voting (usually 10 to 14 days). In line with previous discussion
> on this topic, I would move that we institute the same policy within 
> the Council -- from the date that voting begins, Council members have
> 14 days to vote. If a Council member does not vote, that fact is duly 
> recorded and the member's vote defaults to 0 (neutral). If a Council
> member misses three votes in a row, that member may be removed from
> the Council (notice that Section 2.6 says "may", not "must"). I know
> that I was the one who argued most strenuously against such a policy
> in the past, but I have seen the error of my ways and now realize that
> such a policy is a good thing.
> Further, it seems that section 2.5 also applies to the Council, which
> means that a Council member could be removed upon an affirmative vote
> of two-thirds of the Council. That is a radical step to take, but on
> my reading it is open to the Council to remove a Council member if 
> that should ever become necessary.
> BTW, the Bylaws do not require that the Council be made up of nine
> members. Thus there is no immediate need to replace a Council member
> who resigns, is removed, or is terminated -- the Council could function 
> with fewer than nine members and still comply with the Bylaws. So it's
> not necessary to formulate a procedure for filling a vacancy, although
> it might be good to define such a procedure.
> Thoughts?
> Peter
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Executive Director
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council

Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

More information about the Council mailing list