Notes for 6/16/2008 Call and Next Call on 6/23/2008 at 13:00 GMT
J. Trent Adams
The meeting notes and audio recording for today's call are available
for your reading and listening pleasure:
http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/4IUj
I suggest everyone read the notes and/or listen to the call. Of
interest is that the group voted to accept the work performed by the
Governance Task Force (thanks Elias et al.) and continue the good work
within the Steering Group itself.
The next regularly scheduled Steering Action Group meeting is:
WHAT: Steering Group Teleconference
WHEN: Monday, June 23, 2008 at 13:00 - 14:00 GMT
* Skype: +9900827041975640
* Dial-Up: 1-605-475-8800 Room Code: 1975640
* Back Channel: http://snipr.com/dp_steering_skype
Please add your proposed agenda items to the wiki page:
http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/SoYj
NOTE: In case you're unable to enter the teleconference information
into your calendar (or can't get into your email to retrieve this
note, or otherwise forgot your password into the wiki), the details
for these meetings are also maintained in the DataPortability Google
Calendar [1] as well as at Upcoming.org (subscribe to the
"DataPortability" group [2]).
Also, be on the lookout for an email from Elias as he folds the
governance work into the Steering Group discussion list. I believe
he's proposing another call on Monday at 21:00 GMT to specifically
work on governance.
Talk with ya' again then,
Trent
[1] http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=2i81t2kicvtq1tnnqnpglth4g0%40group.calendar.google.com&ctz=America/New_York
[2] http://upcoming.yahoo.com/group/4182/
------------------------
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams
About Me:http://xri.net/=jtrentadams/+about
Follow Me:http://twitter.com/jtrentadams
Elias Bizannes
Apologies for the brief note but my non-DataPortability work is
currently trying to kill me. I will try to follow up ASAP, but in
short:
Next Monday GMT, there will be two Steering Group calls, with
different functions
- 1300GMT: pure discussion about the governance policies[1], to
clarify and settle any disputes that arise in the mailing list
- 2100 GMT: Purely a vote on specific provisions, on this document
[1]:
In the lead up to this week, the Steering Group will be expected to
generate discussion on the proposed policies.
The wiki page above [1] is also going to be freely editable by anyone.
You are welcome to add new points, change the wordings, and delete
redundant points. But be aware - you actions will be monitored by me
and others. So if anyone does something drastic without consultation
(ie, removing entire articles, completing changing the format), your
edits will be reverted. I assert my right to be the owner of that
document based on my role in the task force and as a co-founder of
DataPortability, to ensure nothing unfair occurs and changes are
considered.
Following the call at 1300GMT, pending the resolutions of the call,
the above mentioned wiki page will be locked for further edits. This
permits time to formulate a position of "Adopt" or "Drop" on specific
paragraphs and articles. Policies will be adopted or dropped on a
simple majority basis. Note that Steering will not be adopting an
entire governance document, but rather specific points. The outcome of
that vote, will form the basis of our governance policy document.
I encourage everyone to scan the archives of the governance task
force; to review our workpapers on the wiki as well as the minutes/
recordings, to get up to speed on our deliberations. I apologise I am
out of action due to my commitments, but I hope we can get into a
discussion in these forums and will do my best to guide them in the
absense of the other former task force members doing so.
Once the DataPortability Project can formalise its basic governance
policies, it will allow us to move forward at great speed - so whilst
some of you treat this as admin, it actually is quite pivotal to the
future of DataPortability.
[1] http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/ooUj
Aaron Cheung
> http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/ooUj
> The initial roll of MEMBERS of the STEERING GROUP shall consist of everyone who attended at least two of the regularly scheduled
> Steering Action Group teleconference calls between April 1 2008 and June 1 2008
Apart from the moot issue (thank you for making it moot that efficiently.. it's almost evil) of instituting such policy "proposal"
(actually more than a proposal in essence, because of the evil consequence) literally hours before June 1 2008 in creating the June
1 2008 deadline -- the period between April 1 2008 and June 1 2008 and the teleconference calls of those 62 days are already all
history, and theeefore the initial roll of MEMBERS of the STEERING GROUP is already closed. As such, would you want to guide the
roll keeper (whoever keeping it) to provide the number, and the names, of this initial roll of MEMBERS who can vote? As that is
already automatically defined by now, before any kind of vote you're calling for, making it sound like a defining moment or
something very democratic (even though dataportability requires no humandemocracy).
Or in short, 1stly, could we know how many qualified voters and this point, and/or who they are?
2ndly,
>Any STEERING GROUP MEMBER may nominate one person per meeting to become a MEMBER.
is evil.
As I opined in our offline discussions, a vote is sacred and should not depend on the mercy of others. That's a long-held principle.
If voter eligibility has to be earned, the existence of such fast route to voting power is evil, or evil enough.
You meantioned people can edit the wiki, but you reserve the right to change it back if such change is significant. If I edit "June
1 2008" to "July 1 2008" or "August 1 2008", would you undo the edit?
Best regards,
Aaron
Elias Bizannes
Your comments are welcome as always.
1) That initial roll call. The minutes of the meetings are available
for everyone and to the best of my knowledge, no one from the
governance task force knows who these members actually are, but for
your benefit I've listed them below (even though you could have found
out yourself)[1]:
April 1st, 2008
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams)
Elias Bizannes (elias.bizannes)
Steve Greenberg (greenbes)
Chris Allen (christopherrayallen)
Jacob Chapel (chap3l)
Brady Brim-DeForest (bradybd)
John Breslin (johnbreslin)
Phil Wolf (dial-in)
Christian Topf (herrtopf)
Mary Trigiani (mtrigiani)
Brett McDowell (myidiym)
Harry Halpin (dial-in)
Daniela Barabosa (medanielabarbosa)
Dave Morin (dial-in)
Monday, April 14, 2008
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams)
Mary Trigiani (mtrigiani)
Phil Wolff (5104448234)
Steve Greenberg (greenbes)
Brady Brim-DeForet (bradybd)
Brett McDowel (myidiym)
Monday, April 21, 2008
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams)
Chris Saad (chris.saad)
Bill Sager (yoda2unow)
Christian Sholtz (herrtopf)
Ben Metcaffe (dotben)
David Rudin (drudin)
Brett McDowell (myidiym)
Nancy Cole ()
Daniela Barbosa (medanielabarbosa)
Mary Trigiani (mtrigiani)
Brady Brim-DeForest (bradybd)
Elias (elias.bizannes)
Phil Wolff (evanwolf)
Drummond Reed (drummondreed)
Robyn Tippins (duzins)
Monday, April 28, 2008
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams)
Brett McDowell (myidiym)
Dan Brickley (danbrickley)
Mary Trigiani (mtrigiani)
Drummond Reed (drummondreed)
Chris Saad (chris.saad)
Steve Greenberg (greenbes)
Brady Brim-DeForest (bradybd)
Phil Wolff (evanwolf)
Monday, May 5, 2008
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams)
Christian Scholtz (herrtopf)
Brett McDowel (myidiym)
Greg Kohn (with IEEE-ISTO) (noskype)
Brady Brim-DeForest (bradybd)
David Rudin (drudin)
Bob Ngu (bobngu)
Steve Greenberg (greenbes)
Chris Saad (chris.saad)
Monday, May 12, 2008
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams)
Christian Topf (herrtopf)
Phil Wolff (evanwolf)
Dave Rudin (drudin)
Brady Brim-DeForest (bradybd)
Mary Trigiani (mtrigiani)
Daniela Barbosa (medanielabarbosa)
Elias Bizannes (elias.bizannes)
Paul Trevithick (paul.trevithick)
Steve Greenberg (greenbes)
Brett McDowel (myidiym)
Monday, May 19, 2008
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams)
Christian Scholz (herrtopf)
David Rudin (drudin)
Steve Greenberg (greenbes)
Mary Trigiani (mtrigiani)
Brady Brim-DeForest (bradybd)
Elias Bizannes (elias.bizannes)
Daniela Barbosa (medanielabarbosa)
unknown caller (9044938800)
And the count of attendace is as follows:
Brady Brim-DeForet (bradybd) 7
J. Trent Adams (jtrentadams) 7
Brett McDowell (myidiym) 6
Mary Trigiani (mtrigiani) 6
Steve Greenberg (greenbes) 6
Christian Topf (herrtopf) 5
Phil Wolf (dial-in) 5
Daniela Barabosa (medanielabarbosa) 4
David Rudin (drudin) 4
Elias (elias.bizannes) 4
Chris Saad (chris.saad) 3
Drummond Reed (drummondreed) 2
Ben Metcaffe (dotben) 1
Bill Sager (yoda2unow) 1
Bob Ngu (bobngu) 1
Chris Allen (christopherrayallen) 1
Dan Brickley (danbrickley) 1
Dave Morin (dial-in) 1
Greg Kohn (with IEEE-ISTO) (noskype) 1
Harry Halpin (dial-in) 1
Jacob Chapel (chap3l) 1
John Breslin (johnbreslin) 1
Nancy Cole () 1
Paul Trevithick (paul.trevithick) 1
Robyn Tippins (duzins) 1
Your second point:
following
1) The Steering Group holds a lot of power. So there needs to be
barrier of *some sort* for people to get in. This is for the
protection of the organisation and the stakeholders of the
DataPortability Project. Undue influence from companies stacking a
vote; and issues related to quorum (see below)
2) For a motion to pass, 51% of eligible voters must be PRESENT. If
you have any experience with committees that require quorum, you will
know that organisations can effectively be held hostage because
members never participate as quorum is never reached...which means
decisions can't be made. Therefore, for us to have a high quorum count
which is to ensure decisions are representative, we need to be very
strict about what constitutes a member. You can't show up once and be
considered a member. You effectively will hold back DataPortability by
bloating the quorum requirement.
If you have a better way of determining who gets membership, by all
means - make the suggestion. But if you sit down and think about it,
this is not evil as you state, but just realistic. We need members who
commit to meetings and who need to 'earn' the right through
participation. If you get the 'glory' of membership, do you realise
that you potentially will hold back DataPortability as you bloat the
quorum count and therefore we can never pass decisions? I don't think
it's unreasonable to expect that if you are a voting member, you are
someone that contributes more than the occasional e-mail. One again, I
don't mean this as a personal attack, but consider the issues I raise
above because I think you will find it's actually not as straight
forward. It's very easy to yell evil empire until you try to come up
with a solution yourself. And indeed, if you come up with a better
approach, I would love to hear it.
>You meantioned people can edit the wiki, but you reserve the right to change it back if such change is significant. If I >edit "June 1 2008" to "July 1 2008" or "August 1 2008", would you undo the edit?
special meaning behind it, it just so happened that seemed like a fair
period to put in. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what date it is - if
the people from May and June are genuine and consistent members, then
I would expect them to be eligible in July and August. Of course, the
risk with allowing a change is that suddenly we are going to get new
faces attending steering calls who have never done anything for the
Project, but to be honest, if they maintain their attendance (as
required by the strict attendance rules) then so be it - they would be
a welcome addition.
Also understand what I meant by my comments is that you are welcome to
change it, but if someone else reverts it, in the case where we have
an edit war, I am going to revert back to the original and step in.
Also, it is courtesy that if you make a substantial change like that,
you at least notify the mailing list so people can consider it, rather
than doing it on the sly. Grammar and spelling changes don't require
notifications, but changes of substance do merit some discussion.
Cheers,
Elias
[1] http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/RQQR
Aaron Cheung
Thanks, that is really a lot of names (repeatedly). If you think the June 1 2008
is just a "line in the sand", ok then. Of course I would disagree, but I don't think
we (you and I) have a common ground to argue about it.
Regarding your mention of earning the voting right through participation, suffice to
say that it amounts to saying that only participation-in-the-teleconference-calls are
particpiation, other forms of participation is not participation. Another way put,
no one knew that participation-in-the-teleconferences were elements about earning
votes, until May 31's imposing a "line-in-the-sand" deadline of June 1 2008. LOL.
Interesting and great minds indeed. You know what the problem is. Denying
it would only add insult to injury. The current wiki is more concerned about
validating the already-in-power's power, instead of the long term viability of
the proposed organization. For example, there's no organization/corporate
class of membership, and for the next term, people don't even know how to
become a "future" member -- for those outside of your Apr 1 - Jun 1 group.
Might be things will become better after somebody secured power. Good luck.
But enough people lost people's respect in drawing such line-in-the-sand, with
such effort to exclude people, which is what dataportability.org does best from
day 1. You might not be aware of it. But this is exactly what's being practised.
The 51% members forming the quorum is another joke, which leads to your
holding-the-org-back scenario, and thus the creative/sneaky exclusion strategy,
making doubly sure people would not get "glory" with "no participation", and
that those sneakily getting the "glory" will continue to get the perpetual glory?
Rouge mentality at best. Trust? There's none at DP. Don't even talk about it.
Regards,
Aaron
Elias Bizannes
I've asked to you provide a solution. Criticism is welcome if you can
back your words.
Until you do, I'm not going to use my limited time replying to your
concerns going forward, because you've just shown me disrespect. You
required me to respond which I did timely and with a full answer, and
in response you question the fundamental assumptions of what I asked
you, instead of actually answering it. Those assumptions I state are
not something pulled out of the Evil Empire, but on mimicing other
deliberative bodies. We didn't make them up. And to respond to me like
that, flags you are more interested in chasing a tail than proposing a
better solution.
If you don't understand the concept of quorum, then go do some
research before you shoot your mouth.
Aaron Cheung
You don't have to welcome my criticism. But if you cannot take the heat,
just get out of the kitchen. Re quorum, I think I understood that since high
school, when I had been chairman of several interschool associations, which
of course were decades ago, plus I've been involved at the core of setting up
two 501(c)(3)'s in the US, one political and one technical, both in the 90's.
I don't think the concept of quorum changed much if at all over the decades.
In fact, I thought we were experimenting RR2.0 where membership and
quorum were almost proposed as irrelevant -- but now, suddenly turned
into the almost the most exclusive forms of each?
The reason of my tone in responding to you "like that" is because we've
already discussed that thoroughly offline, and you well understand what
the issues were, and you seem to think that the exclusion of me due to
the Apr1-Jun1-telecon after-the-fact imposition is very fine, and my
eligibility to vote should be subject to somebody willing to nominate
me to be a member (recall my voting right sacred and shouldn't subject
to the mercy of others mention?) So, I guess what I had was your
disrespect to me (and all those who did not participate in the telecons).
Re your full answer, I think you misinterpreted my request (not require).
I asked if you'd like to *guide* (after your own wording in your original
message of the thread) the roll keeper to provide the roll info. Your
doing it yourself was not expected, much less request/required, but
you have my respect in your timely response.
Regarding to provide a solution, the solution is to stop rushing the process
and let things take their time. It's just not mature to call for any votes.
Another solution to revisit the Apr1-Jun1-telecons after-the-fact
dependency. There will be no solution until we can fix the exclusion
problem, be it purposeful or oversight.
Elias Bizannes
less patient with people who are not constructive.
The governance task force made a lot of deliberate decisions, and the
final document does not represent a lot of our philosophy underpinning
it.
From the very begining ofthe DataPortability Project, we've wanted to
create a participatory culture - those who contribute the most, hold
the most influence. And the task force came up with a solution that on
the one hand catered for the procedural issues (formality on making
decisions) whilst ensuring participants still influenced decisions.
As you will note in Article VIII paragraph 5, we make it clear that
even if people can't vote they should not be exlcluded from meetings.
It's subtle, but quite frankly, quite an important point and there is
a recorded discussion to prove how fundamental this decision was for
us. What we discussed was that just because someone can't vote,
doesn't necessarily mean they can't influence. So therefore, by making
sure anyone can attend a meeting, despite the restrictions we put on
who can vote, we still allow anyone to have a spot to state their
opinion - which in fact, may influence the voters as be just as
effective as them having a vote themselves.
But when it comes to the procedural issues, we need to be as strict as
possible, for the reasons already mentioned. So if you can understand
why we are strict with procedure, but completely open to ensure a
voice from anyone, the issue of who votes actually becomes less
important. In fact, the people who do vote have to be accontable and
are burdened with responsibility - they can be scruitinised for how
they act. By being someone who can influence the voters, without
getting your name dirty, you can actually hold a lot of power
(assuming of course, people listen to you). A respected participant is
in a position to influence DataPortability on their silent vote.
One of the core issues with "allocating" membership is that no one
pays for membership. We have no way of easy determining what
constitutes a member. However, we only want people who are active
contributors. People that help run the organisation, as well as people
who are regular and consistent in their commitment.
The process of "nominating" someone, and the putting it to a vote - is
simply the easiest way we could do this. All other measures are too
difficult to quantify or a bit too harsh. By simply putting it to a
vote of the current membership, you basically prove yourself to them.
Whilst I recognise you may have an authority problem and hate the fact
someone can determine you fate - in reality, this is about protecting
the organisation. It basically forces non-members to prove their
worth. In fact, if you are voted down, you are forgetting that the
people who voted you down have to live with the accountability of the
decision. It wil tarnish their reputation if they are voting down
people for misguided reasons; not only is it in their interest to only
allow people who genuinely contribute for the sake of meeting quorum
in the future, but it is in their interest to have a damn good reason
why they don't admit someone.
Again, you haven't really provided a solution albeit only one which is
changing the process of the "original" members. Perhaps you will find
this close to your preference:
"The founding members of the revised Steering Group will be determined
by attendance to at least two teleconference calls between 1 June 2008
and 31 July 2008."
- this gives advance notice to people who wouldn't qualify; and at
least 6 meetings to meet the criteria
But again, I don't see this as a big deal, and haven't an issue
changing it. I can understand why it may upset people like yourself,
but to be honest, I am also weary of people who suddenly what to jump
at membership because of the perceived power despite making no
contribution in the past.
Where I do what you resolution, is on how you dismiss the process of
picking new members. With regard to my comments above about the
influence of non-members; and respecting the fact we want quorum and
therefore have to cater for the associated risks with having such a
device - my quetions to you are:
- what is an approproate "bar" before someone is admitted to
membership, assuming we want people to earn it?
- What is a fair way to allow non-members to become members, in a way
that is easily measureable?
Currently it's they have to prove themselves, and a current member
nominates them. What is your alternative?
Mike Smith - dominoconsultant
organizational structure. We should all note that these proposed
"rules", although each thoroughly discussed (pro & con) in Governance
have not been approved or ratified by Steering at this stage. This
includes the “line in the sand” provision.
Aaron Cheung
very beginning of the DataPortability Project, it has been notorious about
ignoring and dumping and segregating people, thinking that it's great people
management in practice, doing the org an favor. It's not. It's more like
control freaks trying the last ditch effort to maintain control for as long as
possible, at all expense. And people got upset as a result, and explains
so much of the necessary/unnecessary animosty. If as a leader you're
less patient, why would you expect your followers to be patient and calm?
Constructive, or not, is relative to people's standpoint, whether things turn
out in your favour. By your, I do not necessarily mean Elias, to be sure.
To me, it's pretty constructive, in the sense that it's just part of the process.
It's more of a action/reaction thing.
The current sentiment was about that line-in-the-sand sneakiness of the
excluding people in the name of best inclusions, aggravating it by further
teasing and irritating people with, "you have to earn your eligibility to vote!"
>What is your alternative?
Simply, as I've mentioned before, take a look at the governance model of
the OpenID Foundation. Most of the stuff you need are already there.
Even the OpenSocial Foundation is using them as a major reference.
I of cos don't mean you just copycat them verbatim. But better than
too creative with such line-in-the-sand to offend people, or with
51%-members-as-quorum inviting unnecessary troubles for yourself.
Elias Bizannes
solution is lazy - because if you look at the details, you will
acually find it doesn't solve the questions I posed to you which you
have been so quick to dismiss.
I've asked you to propose a solution on how someone becomes a member.
Pointing to another organisation isn't a solution - for the record,
the governance task force had Brett McDowell who is the executive
directors of Liberty Alliance heavily involve himself. We certainly
did not lack inspiration, and the six of us combined drew on a diverse
expeience with working in organisations of all sorts.
But back to OpenID as your well thought out solution. It's not
appropriate in the context of our discussion for the following
reasons:
1) It's a formal entity. This is for a community. I am not afraid to
admit that I am actually trying to drive a different approach. I
specifially want to create a type of model where the community has
supermacy, and a legal entity is simply a tool to execute the
community's needs. Therefore this robust community and membership
criteria is of utmost importance.
2) Membership is paid for OpenID - it costs $150 to be a member. As I
have mentioned above and for many other reasons, membership being paid
as a due actually would make life easier. But then again, this is not
practical for an open community like what we are trying to create and
encourage. We want a culture where you earn membership by
participating. Not money, but commitment.
All we are saying, is that for you to be a member, you simply get
nominated and voted in. Everything's in the open. No closed doors. And
even if you don't get membership, you can participate in decisions
just like anyone else.
Separately, the OpenID foundation seems to define quorum (under
section 4.7) as:
1) Simply a meeting by a group of people OR
2) A majority vote of all members
Whereas what we are saying, is that
1) A meeting is not valid unless it has the majority of all members
2) A majority vote of all members
So I would argue that what we are doing is actually more
repesentative. You can't just call a meeting out of nowhere, and pass
a decision. We require that a meeting is representative of the
membership base. We have set an extremely high criteria, but that
doesn't make it inferior - it fact, it makes it stronger and more
representative. And unlike a foundation, we don't elect a board of
directors - we admit them. We have no cap on how many people are part
of steering. All we require, is that you make a commitment and fulfil
your duties, otherwise your membership is stripped. So therefore for
such an inclusive approach, we need to set a high bar of how people
get, maintain, and can lose membership.
So I am going to ask you again Aaron - please propose a solution.
Aaron Cheung
foundation, that's what you need, and that's my solution. If we're not
setting up DP as a foundation, most of the stuff we're talking about
is meaningless. I've read what you've written. I've actually written a
paragraph about it, but eventually chose to highlight-and-delete, of
approx 10 lines, because I am here not to make issues for the purpose
of making issues, with you. But if I may say that again, at your challenge
that I have not read what you've written -- you talked almost like a
Communist hardcore. I'm not unfamiliar with that form of government.
Simply put, it's called one-party dictatorship. Good or bad, you decide.
I'm not trying to belittle and/or dwarf the contribution of the persons
you've mentioned. I'm just here to tell you, I don't like the way that
line in the sand was drawn, because that's cheating at best.
About the quorum, re "more representive", it's glorified. Which is more
representative -- 51% of 12 people, or 15% of 90 people? Why 15%?
No particular reason. Just seems like a good number. Or if you like,
the reverse of 51. Make sense? Obviously not. Most of what you're
talking about (for what you've written) does not [make sense](in a
civilized/intelligent world).. it's more like a plot to maintain perpetual
power, by having the first not so legitimately selected group to validate
such power, then use such power to select people according to your
liking (in the name of what you call proofing oneself to be of merit).
Sigh.
Mike Smith
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:09:54 +0800
> From: a...@ydrive.com
> Subject: [DP.AG.Steering] Notes for 6/16/2008 Call and Next Call on 6/23/2008 at 13:00 GMT
> To: dataportabilit...@googlegroups.com
Elias Bizannes
Something I want to clarify is that the intent of the governance
proposal is to:
1) Protect stakeholders by ensuring all decisions are rubber stamped
by steering. There is great risk if something is deemed "official"
DataPortability without adequate control procedures. Steering has a
restrictive voting base, but non-voters can be involved in decision
making - I don't believe the communists allow that.
2) Allow the community (plenary) to over-rule steering if they make a
bad judgement. Anyone can be part of the plenary. Again, I don't
believe the communists allow that.
3) Something not explicitly stated by the governance proposal, is that
the community essentially drives all the work. Steering by function
does not to do any of the work, and as such, their influence is
limited purely to striking off proposals purely on procedural grounds.
In a communist government, they dictate what work needs to be done; in
this open community, Steering purely gives a stamp of approval on any
work performed to ensure all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed.
Also, for the benefit of the people receiving these e-mails, I have
asked you to formally state your solution.
You've failed to do that, so I will do that for you now, based on the
vague resources you pointed to. Forgive me for misinterpreting what
exactly it is you want, but to be honest, I am not sure what you are
proposing. Below I have modified the existing governance policy
proposals to take into account your requests.
1. "The founding MEMBERS of the Steering Group will be determined by
and 31 July 2008."
MEMBER by either
a) Payment of a $150 membership fee OR
b) Nomination by an existing steering MEMBER with a simple majority of
the qourum
You have additionally claimed that quorum of 51% is too high. It is.
But whilst we are drawing on multiple examples, lest of all the
communist-loving US government - you insist on 15% which is common for
organisations with a large membership base (not the likely 10-30 we
would expect ot have in steering).
So with reference to Article IX, I'd imagine the changes you would
want are:
Article IX: Determining Quorum
1) During a Face-to-Face meeting, a Quorum shall be 15% attendance of
the total membership roll who are physically present in the room or
otherwise present via teleconference. For a Quorum to be recognised
during such a Face-to-Face meeting, the minimum notice period prior to
the meeting occurring shall be thirty (30) calendar days and a
teleconference facility must be set up for MEMBERS not physically able
to attend.
2) During a Teleconference, a Quorum shall be 15% attendance of the
total membership roll who are present. Their presence will be recorded
in response to a roll call, either verbally or via a designated
backchannel. For the Quorum to be valid during a Teleconference, the
minimum notice period prior to the Teleconference occurring shall be
seven (7) calendar days.
2) During an Electronic Ballot via a designated mailing list, a Quorum
will be assumed. For the Quorum to be valid where a vote is called via
Electronic Ballot, the minimum time from the call for a vote to the
close of voting shall be seven (7) calendar days
Elias
Aaron Cheung
PROPOSED AGENDA:
- Introductions
- Nomination and vote on new member of Steering Group: Mike Smith - dominoconsultant
- Governance polcies
...
Brady Brim-DeForest
I have struck that item from the agenda. At this time, the governance
policy proposed by the Governance Taskforce, led by Elias Bizannes, is
simply that: a proposal. It has not been ratified, and is not yet
official policy. Therefore, there is no need to nominate new members
for inclusion on the Steering Group. Mike, Aaron, and everyone else on
this list – under the current organizational structure of
DataPortability, we are *all* members of Steering.
The 'line in the sand' provision that has been referenced many times
in this thread is a part of the proposed governance policy – it is not
yet policy, and thus, open for discussion and debate. As a fellow
member of the Steering Group, Aaron, I would welcome you to help us to
constructively build upon the Governance Taskforce's proposal. If
there are specific provisions that concern you, please let them be
known – and most importantly, propose a potential solution that would
remedy your concern.
*All* of us on the Steering Group mailing-list have a responsibility
to make our feelings heard and to participate in this discourse. That
is the only way we will build consensus.
Mike, you are already subscribed to this mailing-list and thus, even
if you didn't know it, are already a member of the Steering Group.
Welcome!
Best,
Brady
--
Brady Brim-DeForest
www.brimdeforest.com
Elias Bizannes
lack substance.
That was Mike's doing, and it's because he hasn't got the arrogance of
asserting he should be a member despite not having made any past
contribution to the DataPortability Project. Although I would argue
his contribution with the governance task force makes him very much
deserving as he has participated in twice daily conference calls as
well as multiple threads amongst the task force.
Because he has earned my respect with his participation, I would be
willing to fight for approval by steering to recognise him as a
member, and nominate him if that is what the process would be.
On Jun 19, 11:16 am, Aaron Cheung <a...@ydrive.com> wrote:
> Mike, thanks, I did read your post, though I don't know how it should be interpreted..
>
> Action speaks louder than words -- given those "rules" not having been "approved or ratified" by Steering, if people think so, including the "line in the sand" provision, if people think so, where comes this relevancy of having to get yourself nominated to be a new member of Steering, in the upcoming Steering telecon?
>
> PROPOSED AGENDA:
> - Introductions
> - Nomination and vote on new member of Steering Group: Mike Smith - dominoconsultant
> - Governance polcies
> ...
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Smith
> To: dataportabilit...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 7:14 AM
> Subject: [DP.AG.Steering] Re: Notes for 6/16/2008 Call and Next Call on 6/23/2008 at 13:00 GMT
>
> Aaron, did you not read my post about the line in the sand not being ratified? Or are you more focussed on flaming Elias?
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aaron Cheung
(The communists allow that, and in fact, also called plenary, coincidentally.)
You're a bit strange in that, when I stated my solution in broad and in full, cf.
http://groups.google.com/group/dataportabilitygovernance/msg/ebd95ba593ecb6a4
of May 22, and in particular please note point 4 therein, which, in your wording,
the Governance TF "failed to do that", and instead, produced and asked Steering
to adopt the currently fragmented governance document, for Steering's benefit to
pick and choose points Steering finds suitable.
and when I stated my solution in micro detail, and even took the courtesy to
ask you before my actual doing that -- recall, in my original post of this thread --
'If I edit "June 1 2008" to "July 1 2008" or "August 1 2008", would you undo the edit?'
you failed to give me a yes or no, but in turn, gave me reasonings broader than mine.
And now, repeating with your you "failed to do that, so I will do that for you now" --
with what I already originally stated as my solution on principle of minimal changes.
Do you earn your merits, and, people's respect, this way?
But again, I'm in favor of voting (oops, sorry, seems like I can't vote, almost forgotton)
on a more complete document, rather than the fragmented points in piece meal manner.
So, in short, it (the governance doc) is just not mature to call for people's vote, whoever
the voters are or to be.
And re your do-that-for-you-now on the quorum, I've never meant to suggest this 15%,
which I already stated it was for no particular reason, and it was just as an illustrative
example only. Be it 10% or 20% or 30% or 51% or whatever%, I don't want to just
throw out a number without understanding the full membership structure. My comments
about the 51% was that it brings to you too much worries than necessary and becomes
the root of all evils and thus need to revisit. If the revisit (by GTF or Steering) confirms
that 51% is what you need, so be it, given we know well of the implications and
consequences by now. In fact, I think you've misunderstood/misstated OpenID F's
quorum requirements.. 4.7 was for their members (and in "our" wording, plenary),
what's more pertinent to Steering is 5.11. But, in any case, major difference is, OF's
governance model is not written towards enabling and justifying perpetual power,
with clear terms-of-office and with clear how-to-become-members/directors and
AGM and re-elections etc., in fact, some provisions are legally required by 501(c)(3).
If you ask me, I'd even personally prefer the clear spell-outs of how-long-to-wait
(5 mins? 15 mins? an hour?) before adjourning a meeting due to quorum not met.
But I won't encourage this to DP, since DP is experimenting something [presumably
encourageably] new. But what we're seeing is nothing more than one-party dictatorship.
Again, good or bad, you decide. I've no particular interest, or focus as Mike said,
to flame you/Elias.
In fact, would you really expect big change to the current voting interests, by this
add-one-month/do-it-right edit/modification/correction? I'm highly doubtful. People
in general aren't that power hungry, to call in to listen to your speeches just for the
purpose to vote it up/down, inasmuch as you cannot force people to make quorum,
regardless of what percentage is sensible.
Regards,
Aaron
Mike Smith
All, my intention in placing that item on the agenda was as an exercise so all participants/observers could see how the mechanism might be made to work. As I follow this thread I can hear Aaron has some heartfelt concerns. I hope that if we can see how some of these mechanisms work we may be able to remove some of the Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt about any underlying intentions. Also, as I follow this thread it is apparent that Elias and Aaron have strongly differing views but we should all focus on a common objective, which is coming up with something that we can hopefully, get consensus on. As members of Steering (Thanks for the clarification Brady), we should realize that if/when it does come to a vote in could be that despite some people being out-voted, they may have such strong feelings that a rift may form within the organization.
In the short term how can we put this flame-war to bed and develop a consensus?
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:19:21 +0800
> From: a...@ydrive.com
> Subject: [DP.AG.Steering] Notes for 6/16/2008 Call and Next Call on 6/23/2008 at 13:00 GMT
> To: dataportabilit...@googlegroups.com
>
>
Aaron Cheung
Aaron Cheung
and therefore, should not find relevance to membership and voting eligibility.
But, whoever does the work has the power. But don't forget that power
corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We all know this.
The choice is yours. I've no particular interest to be flaming anybody.
I don't enjoy doing that. But I don't mind doing that. But don't expect
a calm and happy member/subscriber with both voting eligibility unreasonably
or unknowingly stripped, and fingerpointed for you've-to-prove-yourself-blah-blah.
PS. the best protection to the "stakeholders" (whatever you meant by that) is
not to take the dataportability.org matters pubilc; they're not required to.
But if wanted pubilc, and if transactiong business in the name/form of democracy,
then please don't engineer the governance papers to enable perpetual power, /ac.
Brett McDowell
I have not (nor will I) read through every word of this entire
thread. But I've read enough to see it is full of personal insults.
Proposal (regarding how one joins Steering Committee on Day 1):
We re-frame the end-date of the "line-in-the-sand" period to be
dynamic, simply call it "... through the Steering Committee Meeting
when this Governance Policy is Ratified and put into effect". That
removes the problem of a hard end-date but keeps with the original
intent of having some reasonable way to bootstrap the formation of the
Steering Committee quorum.
Comment:
If DataPortability.org is going to evolve from what it is today to
something that has a positive measurable impact across the Web, it is
going to have to attract and retain the participation of major
stakeholders on the Web (i.e. a critical mass of big companies and
governments). Attracting and retaining folks from any particular
target group includes earning their trust. If this email thread is
representative of the level of professionalism one can expect from the
dispute resolution processes deployed in DataPortability.org, then we
have a long way to go. I for one won't be around much longer if this
is how disputes are resolved in DP. Personal attacks cannot be
tolerated.
Request:
I'd like the Steering Committee to develop a code of conduct policy
for these email lists and start enforcing it.
Attempting to be part of the solution vs. part of the problem...
-- Brett McDowell
Elias Bizannes
issue for the the chat rooms.
I'm happy to enforce and comply with any conduct formally written up.
I note you've raised your hand from the minutes you will be developing
this, so I look forward to it.
Aaron Cheung
but bigco's do it day in and day out on corporate level, albeit with beautified
clothings decorated with flowery words, or mainstream media oftentimes
commenting acrimoniously; don't get me wrong -- not encourageable indeed;
why people did that, must have been some reason, whatever it is.. Rgds, /ac.
Brett McDowell
"Personal insults will not be tolerated on DP mailing lists. Every
list with have a recognized policy review deputy who is responsible
for raising perceived violations to the attention of those committing
the violation. If after no less than one warning, the offender
continues to violate the policy the deputy is to recommend removal to
the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will decide whether or
not to remove the offender from the list or pursue other action. Once
removed from a list the offender cannot get readmitted to the list for
a period specified by the Steering Committee."
I have not dealt with these policies before so I just made that up on
the spot. If you have something (from public forums perhaps) that is
more robust feel free to recommend it. I just want something in place
so DP can demonstrate that it takes this issue seriously and is being
a responsible steward of the mailing lists.
P.S.
There are other things that are likely violations of acceptable
behavior but we can always add those in later (like blatant product
pitches, etc.).
-- Brett
Aaron Cheung
a personal insult to A, but at the same time, a personal compliment to B,
as in politics, as in religion, as in social class, even as in business affiliations.
Usually, an etiquette reminder would already serve the purpose. Violations
and committing violations, might be necessary, but perceived too much.
In fact, we might not even know what we are participating in and what we
are here for -- it's getting vaguer and vaguer day after day. There seems
so much hidden agenda from within the Steering Committee circle itself.
Would you consider this comment a group insult (which of course is not
meant to be.)
Brett McDowell
Committee at the time.
-- Brett
Aaron Cheung
Regards,
/ac.