[Council] voting procedures and Council membership

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed May 7 14:31:00 CDT 2003


On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 11:36:42AM -0600, Joe Hildebrand wrote:

> 1) 3/4 majority of *remaining* council members?

Of all. If there are 9 Councilors, 7 would need to vote on removal. Just
think of it as the "7 of 9" rule. :)

> 2) Council can appoint new members for short terms?  Or does there have to
> be another election from the JSF membership.

My suggestion has been that the Council publish a call for applicants 
and decide which applicant to accept. Since the Bylaws do not define 
procedures for filling vacancies on the Council, whether and how to do
so is up to the Council.

Peter

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at jabber.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:17 PM
> > To: council at jabber.org
> >
> > 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
> >    term.
> >
> > If you find any of this problematic, speak now.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > 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
> > 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
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php



More information about the Council mailing list