Sender Policy Framework

   <Julian> 2. What to do about council members that are MIA?
   <Julian> So I propose that we first make a general rule.
   <Julian> For starters, let me try to make a rough motion so we have
            something to discuss.
   <willix> first we need to define "MIA"
   <Julian> MIA = missing in action. Yes, we need to define what that means.
   <Julian> Let me make an attempt.
     <shew> And also, the question should perhaps be a bit more broad.
   <Julian> How so?
   <willix> I mean specifically when it applies, i.e. how long person should
            have been not seen at council meetings, etc
     <shew> Not just focused on just the member.  (Things such as someone else
            taking their place.)
   <Julian> OK. ...
     <shew> Some sort of rule where the quorum required is already reduced
            when there is a MIA situation.
     <shew> oops.  Automatically reduced.
<SDGathman> Since council terms are for a year, I would say the 3 months with
            no listbox or meeting activity, and no phone contact.
<SDGathman> A long vacation can easily be 1 month.
<SDGathman> So 1 month min, 3 months max.
   <willix> I'd say that after 2 month of absense (no meeting or email list
            activity) a council may propose that person be considered MIA
            after additional month of no activity
   <Julian> "When a member of the council has not taken part in council
            meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months
            and a satisfactory excuse could not be obtained from the member,
            they shall be considered 'missing in action'."
   <Julian> "... satisfactory, as decided by the remaining members, ..."
     <shew> hmm
   <Julian> Is that an acceptable definition of "MIA"?
   <willix> Yes, that is good
     <shew> I would actually suggest lowering that to one month.
   <Julian> I'd be content with 1 month.
   <willix> No, I'd say one month is too short
     <shew> If we're away, we should be proactive with notifying folks.
   <Julian> True.
   <Julian> So, any changes to the above text?
     <shew> There should also be no shame involved with there being an
            emergency that prevents that.  No censure or anything, if that's
            the right term.
<SDGathman> Right - no more than learning they've been run over by a bus.
   <Julian> Let me rephrase the above text.
     <shew> Before you propose it as a motion, can we go through everything
            else too..  That is, describing everything implied by a member
            being MIA.
   <Julian> Sure.
     <shew> (I wasn't suggesting any rewording for the "no-shame" bit.  Just
            that emergencies do come up and everything should be about keeping
            the council functioning and not disabled when things happen with
            individual members.)
     <shew> However, as a future April fools, I would be okay with voting that
            Council Members are not to be allowed to be run over by a bus. 
            :-)
   <willix> It maybe funny but the thing is when something like this happens
            the person forgets about a lot of the additional
            non-profit/open-source and related activities
   <willix> he'd forgot to notify but situation could be temporary for only
            one month (more likely family matter, etc)
   <willix> Our activities are also such that we often don't hear from other
            people in council for two weeks
   <willix> adding it all up, it just seems to me that one month term for
            considering MIA is too short
   <Julian> "When a member of the council has not taken part in council
            meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months
            and all attempts at contacting the member have failed, they shall
            automatically be considered 'missing in action'. If the member can
            be reached after a prolonged period of absence, but a satisfactory
            excuse -- as judged by the remaining council -- could not be
            obtained from them, the council may declare 
   <Julian> them 'non-participant'."
     <shew> What would you suggest?  Right now if more than one person is MIA
            we can't do anything.  That's why I have a bias towards
            easy-to-MIA and it being an undoable thing and not-overly-serious. 
   <Julian> Or s/non-participant/AWOL/?
   <Julian> (After the above text, the consequences would be defined.)
   <Julian> Comments?
     <shew> Thinking.
     <shew> What is a prolonged period of absence?
   <Julian> Whatever the council deems appropriate. Not necessarily 2 months.
     <shew> Does this mean that after a couple weeks a council could be a
            non-participant, and then after 2 months MIA?
   <Julian> Remember, that's meant for the case when the non-participating
            member _can_ be reached.
   <Julian> Yes, theoretically that would be possible.
     <shew> Hmm. Okay.
        <-- willix has quit (Quit: My damn controlling terminal disappeared!)
   <Julian> Please hold your breath until willix returns.
     <shew> But no more than two months. :-)
   <Julian> LOL
        --> willix (U2FsdGVkX1@sokol.elan.net) has joined #spf-council
        --- Bouncer gives channel operator status to willix
        --- {0pm3} gives voice to willix
   <Julian> BTW: "Right now if more than one person is MIA we can't do
            anything." -- The above text would principally allow two remaining
            members to declare the other three as MIA/AWOL (if the conditions
            are fulfilled).
   <Julian> We might want to insert a quorum of three.
<SDGathman> If only two members are left, they should be able to request a new
            election.
<SDGathman> (Or one.)
   <Julian> I think that case is pretty unlikely. Let's not worry about that.
   <Julian> "When a member of the council has not taken part in council
            meetings or discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months
            and all attempts at contacting the member have failed, they shall
            automatically be considered 'missing in action'. If the member can
            be reached after a prolonged period of absence, but a satisfactory
            excuse -- as judged by a majority of at least three of the
            remaining council -- could not be obtained fro
   <Julian> m them, the council may declare them 'absent without leave'."
<SDGathman> Hey, with Iran and N Korea getting the bomb, the MIA rules may get
            used . . .
     <shew> In previous meetings there was the suggestion to automatically ask
            the next-condorcet-ranked folks to stand in.  (I dont' know if I
            suggested that or simply agreed with the sentiment.)
   <Julian> See
            http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_1fd503d126aaa609
     <shew> As opposed to holding etra elections.
   <Julian> Is the above definition of "MIA" and "AWOL" acceptable so we can
            proceed to defining the consequences?
   <Julian> (We can return to the MIA/AWOL definition later if necessary.)
     <shew> ok
   <willix> The way it should work is that if remaining council members
            declared in resolution that somebody is MIA, they then can appoint
            somebody else to serve on the council
   <willix> the appointment would be expected to go to next highiest voted
            person from previous election
     <shew> Would the appt be temporary?
   <Julian> No.
   <willix> yes
   <willix> :)
   <Julian> That wouldn't be fair to the new council member.
   <willix> any appointment is by definition temporary
     <shew> If a person was to take a month-long vacation, and was proactive
            about it, could the member ask for a temporary appointment while
            he's gone?
<SDGathman> The appointment should remain until the end of the term.
<SDGathman> Except for shews example.
   <Julian> shew: I think that would be a good idea.
<SDGathman> If the council ends up with 6 members - it apparently needs that
            many to
<SDGathman> get quorum.
   <willix> the aponitment is to fulfil the term of the missing council member
            as long as his situation does not change
     <shew> Okay, so temporary appointment/proxy if you ask or or proactive,
            permanent-through-end-of-term if it's forced on you.
   <willix> Note also that similar-worded rules apply when somebody resigns
     <shew> Oh.  I may misunderstand your viewpoint then willix.
   <willix> There is basicly a missing sit at the council that other council
            members can fill out
     <shew> (that would be "or are proactive" above.)
   <Julian> Let's handle shew's "voluntary leave" situation later.
   <Julian> "A council member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns
            from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the
            prior council election who consents to joining the council."
   <Julian> Comments?
<SDGathman> What about ties?
   <Julian> Then let's toss a coin. :-)
<SDGathman> Nobody can see the toss.
   <Julian> There never was a rule for that corner case.
<SDGathman> We need a trusted coin-flip protocol... :-)
     <shew> A person could be declared AWOL after one day, then replaced.
   <Julian> I guess one of the candidates would be wise enough to withdraw
            voluntarily in such a situation.
     <shew> Without the "or AWOL", I'm fine with that.
<SDGathman> Most likely, the candidates will be very busy, and doing us a
            favor to participate.
   <Julian> shew: Would you prefer to have a clearly defined period of time
            for AWOLness?
<SDGathman> However, in the event of a tie, it should be decided by remaining
            members, after asking both (or all three) candidates about their
            willingness.
<SDGathman> No esoteric protocol required.
   <Julian> Guys, let's not try to cover all the unprobably eventualities...
   <Julian> Guys, let's not try to cover all the unprobable eventualities...
     <shew> Julian:  I'm not sure.  I'm fine with the MIA notion, and that
            causing replacement.
<SDGathman> Hey, we're programmers.  That's our job :-)
     <shew> But for AWOL--that's somewhat nebulous and it also causes
            replacement.
   <Julian> shew: What about Mr. Foo saying "Yes, I did receive your mails,
            but I don't want to participate, and I don't want to resign
            either."?
   <willix> that is not an acceptable excuse
     <shew> Would temporary replacement work for that situation?
   <willix> for non-participation
   <Julian> shew: Why temporary? If Mr. Foo says "I'll be back in 3 months,
            please don't throw me out", then that's a different matter (which
            I think we should discuss later).
   <Julian> But if they deliberately refuse to cooperate, then it should be up
            to the remaining council to replace them.
     <shew> Haha.  I just had a thought.
   <Julian> Reminder: willix needs to leave soon.
     <shew> This might make more sense for the next election though, but.
   <Julian> What thought?
   <willix> I have at least 30 minutes
   <willix> I do wnat to point out that technically there are two concepts
     <shew> What if the votes for resolutions and such were taken from the
            top-five participating condorcet-ranked election winners?
   <Julian> shew: You mean a kind of dynamic council membership?
     <shew> That is, is there perhaps some much simpler way of doing this?
   <willix> one is "vacant sit" on the council which happens when either 1.
            person resigns or 2. he asks to be excused temporarily or 3. Other
            council members decide he's MIA
   <willix> and the MIA concept itself which basicly is that other council
            member may decide person is MIA if he's not participating
   <Julian> Yes. That's what I intended.
   <Julian> I only used "AWOL" as another word for "MIA, but explicitly
            decided by the remaining council".
     <shew> Thanks willix, I agree with that sentiment too.
   <willix> When MIA condition is met and council approves this in a vote only
            then do we have vacant sit and then there is separate guideline to
            be followed to fill that sit
     <shew> oops.  misread.  
   <Julian> I don't think MIAness (unreachable for 2 months) ought to require
            confirmation by the council. It's a simple fact.
   <Julian> That's why it is very clearly defined.
     <shew> I see temporarily-excused and a temporarily-nonparticipating as
            separate from a person-resigning and other council members
            deciding he's MIA.
   <willix> MIA is simple fact but to invoke it and consider council sit
            vacant should require separate vote
   <Julian> Agreed.
   <Julian> I meant, I agree with shew.
     <shew> I think willix, Julian, and I are basically in agreement on this
            sentiment then.
   <Julian> I think only the act of replacing a MIA member ought to require
            confirmation, not the fact of being MIA itself.
     <shew> Agreed.
   <willix> From guidelines for another organization:
   <willix> In the event that one of the elected positions on the ARIN
            Advisory Council is vacated before the end of the term of that
            position, the following procedure may, at the option of the
            current AC, be used to select an individual to fill that position
            until the next regularly scheduled ARIN AC election. At that time,
            the remaining term of that position (if any) will be open to the
            general election process.
   <willix> 1. When there are runner-up nominees from the previous ARIN AC
            election who received at least 5% of the total votes cast, the AC
            will ask the runner-up with the highest number of votes if he/she
            is willing to serve out the term until the next regular election.
            The AC may continue down the list of candidates, in order of
            highest number of votes and still within the 5% category, until a
            replacement is found.
   <willix> 2. When there are no eligible candidates from the prior election,
            the Advisory Council may, by majority vote, appoint an interim
            representative.
   <Julian> Interesting, but more complex than necessary for our purposes.
   <Julian> #2 could be reused, though.
   <Julian> OK, I'll repeat what we have so far:
     <shew> It's hard to translate receiving-atl-least-5%-of-total-votes into
            condorcet-world.
   <Julian> "When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months and all
            attempts at contacting the member have failed, they shall
            automatically be considered 'missing in action' (MIA).
   <Julian> If the member can be reached after a prolonged period of absence,
            but a satisfactory excuse -- as judged by a majority of at least
            three of the remaining council -- could not be obtained from them,
            the council may declare them 'absent without leave' (AWOL).
   <Julian> A council member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns
            from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the
            prior council election who consents to joining the council."
   <Julian> --
   <Julian> I acknowledge the above is still incomplete.
   <Julian> But of what we already have, does anyone think it needs to be
            changed? If so, what part?
   <Julian> "... The replacement shall require confirmation by the remaining
            council members."
   <Julian> That would require one vote in the MIA case (for the replacement)
            and two votes in the AWOL case (1. determine AWOL status, 2.
            confirm replacement).
   <willix> I think it even MIA should rquire confirmation of council members
   <Julian> I disagree. What do the others think?
<SDGathman> Then if 2 are MIA, there is no way forward.
<SDGathman> You need relaxed quorum rules for determining MIA status.
   <willix> Yes, I agree about relaxed rules
   <Julian> What's there to determine about MIA status?
   <willix> Personally I think we're better off with common AWOL/MIA defintion
   <Julian> But then we should drop the two months requirement.
   <Julian> Then I'd agree.
   <Julian> There's no point in requiring a strict period of time to elapse
            AND a council vote.
   <Julian> Even if you do NOT trust the "remaining council" not to abuse the
            rules, they can still abuse them after two months, even if the
            member in question DID participate.
   <Julian> There's no council police.
<SDGathman> Are MIA members eligible for reelection?
   <Julian> Of course.
   <Julian> I can't imagine why not.
     <shew> I agree that they should be.
<SDGathman> Then any abuse is limited to the 1 year term.
   <Julian> Comments on dropping the strict 2 months requirement in favor of
            unified MIA/AWOL handling?
     <shew> Can you explain what this unified handling would mean?
     <shew> I'm somewhat confused on it.
   <Julian> In effect, it would mean this: "At any time, a majority of at
            least three council members can decide to remove any member from
            the council."
   <Julian> It may sound harsh, but I think it would actually be a good and
            simple rule.
<SDGathman> There should be a requirement of some minimum period of
            non-participation which the world at large can observe.
   <willix> I have a proposal.
   <Julian> willix: Go ahead.
<SDGathman> I someone is at all the meetings, but being an a**, Julian's rule
            would let the others get rid of him.
   <willix> Leave two definitions but have them use differently. 
     <shew> This may work better in email than IRC, as we're getting into
            edits of things we more or less agree on the general sentiments
            of.
   <willix> MIA would be used to lower the quorum
   <Julian> willix: ... lower the quorum for what purposes?
   <Julian> For _all_ purposes?
   <willix> AWOL is used to declare vacant council sit
   <willix> When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            discussion
   <willix> on the council mailing lists for more then a month, he maybe
            considered
   <willix> 'missing in action' and a quorum for council meeting is lowered by
            one.
   <Julian> Interesting idea. But that would enable the council to let the MIA
            member occupy his seat and play the game with only four players,
            with a reduced quorum. I don't think this is an extremely good
            idea.
   <Julian> I mean, I know that that's what we've been doing for the past
            months, but I'd rather see the "unused" but occupied seat be
            reallocated ASAP when it is clear that the member is MIA.
<SDGathman> So reduced quorum only for getting a new member.
<SDGathman> From the next in the list.
   <Julian> Yes.
   <willix> If the member is MIA for period of month or more or can be reached
            after
   <willix> a prolonged period of absence, but a satisfactory excuse -- as
            judged by
   <willix> a majority of at least three of the remaining council -- could not
            be
   <Julian> "A council member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns
            from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the
            prior council election who consents to joining the council. The
            replacement shall require confirmation by at least three of the
            remaining council members."
   <Julian> That's effectively a reduced quorum for the purpose of selecting a
            new member.
<SDGathman> That sounds good to me.
     <shew> What about an unoccupied seat being temporarily allocated to
            next-in-line after (short-period-of-inactive-time or
            proactively-notified-temporary-absense), or permanently after
            (longer-period-of-inactive-time or voluntary-resignation).
     <shew> (I was typing that as Julian sent the previous.)
<SDGathman> In a case of MIA (as opposed to AWOL), the member recovered from
            their coma can rejoin the (now larger council).
   <Julian> Well, I don't think the council should be able to grow larger, but
            as this case is highly unlikely, I could live with such a rule.
     <shew> I don't see how the council could grow larger with Julian's rule.
   <Julian> Please do propose concrete wordings. I'll repost what I have in my
            editor:
<SDGathman> Maybe the recovered MIA could be honored with a non-voting
            membership, like ex-council members.
   <Julian> When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            discussion on the council mailing lists for 2 months and all
            attempts at contacting the member have failed, they shall
            automatically be considered 'missing in action' (MIA).
   <Julian> If the member can be reached after a prolonged period of absence,
            but a satisfactory excuse -- as judged by a majority of at least
            three of the remaining council -- could not be obtained from them,
            the council may declare them 'absent without leave' (AWOL).
   <Julian> A council member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns
            from the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the
            prior council election who consents to joining the council. The
            replacement shall require confirmation by at least three of the
            remaining council members.
   <Julian> --
   <Julian> Sorry if I missed any obviously consented amendments.
   <willix> Here is my alternative as I posted above:
   <willix> 1. When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            discussion on the council mailing lists for more then a month, he
            maybe considered 'missing in action' and a quorum for council
            meeting is lowered by one.
   <willix> 2. If the member is MIA for period of a month or more or can be
            reached after having been MIA, but a satisfactory excuse -- as
            judged by a majority of at least three of the remaining council --
            could not be obtained from them, the council may declare them
            'absent without leave' (AWOL)
   <willix> cil member who is MIA or AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from
   <willix> hold on
   <Julian> That means a member cannot be replaced unless they have been MIA
            for two months, or have been MIA for one month and give an
            insatisfactory excuse.
   <willix> 3. A council member who is AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from
            the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the
            prior council election who consents to joining the council. The
            replacement shall require confirmation by at least three of the
            remaining council members.
   <willix> correct
   <Julian> What about someone who has never been MIA but refuses to
            participate?
<SDGathman> A filibuster...
   <Julian> (... not that this case were very likely.)
   <willix> he's MIA if he does not participate
   <Julian> Any objections to willix's version?
   <Julian> I think it's a bit complex, but I can live with it.
     <shew> I'm trying to type up somethign more automatic.
     <shew> Though I also like willix's versiobn.
     <shew> version
   <Julian> Should I try to fix the grammar? (No offense, willix.)
   <willix> yes go ahead
     <shew> Let me cut&paste my alternate.  It will likely just show
            willix/Julian's versions to be much better in comparison, heh.
     <shew> 1. When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            discussion onthe council mailing lists for 2 weeks, they shall
            automatically be considered
     <shew> 'absent without leave' (AWOL).
     <shew> 2. When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            discussion onthe council mailing lists for 2 months, they shall
            automatically be considered
     <shew> 'missing in action' (MIA).
     <shew> 3. MIA council members will automatically be replaced by the next
            best winner
     <shew> of the prior council election who consents to joining the council.
     <shew> 4. AWOL council members will automatically be temporarily replaced
            by the next
     <shew> best winner of the prior council election who consents to joining
            the council.
     <shew> That can be cleaned up, but it's a way of doing this sort of thing
            all automatically.
   <Julian> I like the reversed order of "MIA" and "AWOL". It makes sense.
   <Julian> I don't think AWOL should require only two weeks of absence.
   <Julian> Or, at least the temporary replacement due to AWOLness should not
            be automatic.
<SDGathman> Yes, long vacation is one month.
     <shew> It is probably too short.  I mainly wanted to suggest this as an
            alternate way of looking at the problem.
   <Julian> We could include "without explanation" in the AWOL definition.
   <willix> I don't like automaticly replaements without confirmation of
            MIA/AWOL
   <Julian> I think that replacement members should always have to be
            confirmed by at least three council members.
     <shew> If someone is out for a month, is it better to ask another person
            to take their place temporarily, or to have reduced quorum?
   <willix> also two weeks is way too short
   <Julian> I think we should handle the temporary replacement issue another
            day.
   <willix> reduced quorum is typical answer
     <shew> Why should replacement members be confirmed?
          * Julian is still rephrasing willix's version.
     <shew> Other than confirming their willingness to replace a MIA/AWOL
            member?
   <willix> in majority of other democratic institutions
     <shew> I'm sorry--I disagree with you Julian.  I would like to handle the
            permanent and temporary replacement policy all at once, so it's
            cohesive.
   <willix> in some cases what happens is that there are "non voting"
            alternative members who do participate and they get a vote if
            somebody else is missing
   <Julian> shew: I think the council should have the final say, not the
            rules. The rules may specify minimum requirements, but I don't
            like having it all entirely automatic.
     <shew> In general I disagree there as well.  When a person does become
            awol, there are likely to be tensions of some sort, and that's the
            precise time where automatic rules work best.
     <shew> I'm fine with us voting on whether
            having-surgery/being-on-vacation is a good-enough-excuse, but..
            when replacement is necessary...I don't see what exactly it is
            that we'd be confirming, other than that the replacment is happy
            to join.
     <shew> (Well, grudgingly okay more than actually fine.)
   <Julian> I agree.
   <willix> this does not require voting
   <Julian> Let me see what I can make of this and willix's last version.
   <willix> fyi - 15/20 minutes and I have to go
   <Julian> Here it comes:
   <willix> although I still like to get this issues passed into resolution,
            but most likely actually using it may have to be on next meeting
   <Julian> When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month,
            they are automatically considered 'missing in action' (MIA) and
            the quorum for council meetings is temporarily reduced to three
            until the MIA member returns.
   <Julian> If a member continues to be MIA for one more month, or can be
            reached after having been MIA, but a satisfactory excuse cannot
            not be obtained from them, they may be declared 'absent without
            leave' (AWOL) by a majority of three of the remaining council.
   <Julian> A council member who is AWOL, or who voluntarily resigns from the
            council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the prior
            council election who consents to joining the council.
   <Julian> --
   <Julian> Should we swap the terms "MIA" and "AWOL"? Or replace "AWOL" by
            "inactive"?
   <Julian> The above is a compromise. It does not require confirmation of the
            replacement in the "MIA for two months" case.
   <willix> AWOL can also be replaced by saying that if person is MIA or did
            not give an excuse or resigns then their council position is
            considered vacant
   <Julian> But that would just make the text longer and harder to understand,
            right?
   <willix> yes
     <shew> Can you describe the compromise?
   <Julian> So, any objections to the above text (modulo s/AWOL/inactive/,
            which I'd actually prefer)?
     <shew>;; Is it just about confirmation?  (If so, were there reasons for the
            confirmation?)
   <Julian> Well, the compromise is that it doesn't require confirmation in
            the "MIA for two months" case, like you requested.
   <Julian> I think willix proposed that confirmation.
     <shew> Willix, are you okay with no-confirmation?
   <Julian> Can we now agree that the above text is "good enough" and trust in
            the council not to abuse any looholes? ;-)
   <willix> I'd rather have confirmation, but I can leave with your text
     <shew> (If he's okay with it then it's not even a compromise. :-)  )
   <Julian> looPholes
     <shew> Willix, what was the reason for confirmation?
   <willix> s/leave/live/
     <shew> I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.
   <Julian> 19:28 UTC <willix> I think it even MIA should rquire confirmation
            of council members
     <shew> (I'm liking the text, and would like to replace AWOL with inactive
            too.  Just re-reading.)
   <willix> it just a matter of democratic process
   <willix> I prefer that situation be confirmed
<SDGathman> The confirmation would serve as a mark.  Outside observers can see
            when the reduced quorum rule was invoked, and check that the
            requirements were properly met.
   <Julian> The question is, can there be a case when the rules force a
            replacement despite the council not wanting to?
   <willix> Yes, as SDG put it
<SDGathman> Julian, no your last rules only reduce quorum automatically (on
            upon confirmation for benefit of outside observers).
<SDGathman> Actually removing member requires a vote (with reduced quorum).
   <Julian> Not wanting to prolong the discussion, but does it really?
   <Julian> Yes, you're right, it does.
   <Julian> There's no automatic "MIA for two months --> member replaced"
            mechanism.
   <willix> The purpose of MIA rule not requirying confirmation is so that
            council could meet even if fewer persons can be gathered
<SDGathman> The council has to declare them AWOL as opposed to MIA.
   <Julian> Yep.
<SDGathman> MIA does not get replaced.  AWOL does.
     <shew> I'm fine with it requiring a vote actually, because the vote in
            effect validates that an official attempt at contact was made.
   <Julian> s/AWOL/inactive/
   <Julian> OK, I'll repost the text, can we then vote on it?
     <shew> SDGathman's objection on MIA requiring a mark can be fixed by an
            edit in that paragraph--
   <Julian> shew: Shoot.
     <shew> by saying that the MIA is automatic upon any remaining council
            member noting it in some way.
   <willix> Post it as a motion
   <Julian> Wait.
   <Julian> shew: Can you post a modified first paragraph?
     <shew> Can you add that logic into the MIA definition Julian?  (And
            perhaps do the s/AWOL/inactive/ )?
     <shew> Will try.  One sec.
     <shew> When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month,
            they are automatically
     <shew> considered 'missing in action' (MIA) once any remaining council
            member makes not of this fact on the spf council mailing lists or
            spf council irc channel, and the quorum for council meetings is
            temporarily reduced to three until the
     <shew> MIA member returns.
     <shew> Please feel free to edit and improve of course!
     <shew> But does this address your marking concern, SDGathman?
     <shew> mark-the-event concern
   <Julian> I think the marking is implicit.
<SDGathman> shew, yes
   <Julian> I mean, the need of explicitly marking the event is implied by the
            old text.
   <Julian> I mean, the fact cannot be determined without somebody noting it.
   <willix> It is - they council meets and decided that they can do so with
            lower quorum
     <shew> I actually prefer the old text actually.
   <Julian> Me too.
     <shew> But the awkardness of adding this addition is okay if it's
            required for SDGathman to feal more at ease.
   <Julian> OK, next try:
     <shew> When a council member has not taken part in council meetings or
            ongoing discussion on the council mailing lists for one month,
            they are automatically
     <shew> considered 'missing in action' (MIA) once any remaining council
            member makes note of this fact on the spf council mailing list or
            spf council irc channel, and the quorum for council meetings is
            temporarily reduced to three until the
     <shew> MIA member returns.
     <shew> Spelling fixes.
   <Julian> SDGathman: Do you think this explicitness is required?
<SDGathman> Yes.  Someone just needs to say, "Since we haven't seen Foo in a
            month,
<SDGathman> let's use the reduced quorum rule."
   <Julian> OK, let me try... (pasting)
     <shew> Wait.
     <shew> SDGathman, I think you're disagreeing with yourself..
   <Julian> When a council member is determined to not having taken part in
            council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing
            lists for one month, they are automatically considered 'missing in
            action' (MIA) and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily
            reduced to three until the MIA member returns.
   <Julian> --
   <Julian> What about that?
     <shew> With Julian's wording, when quorum is lowered "automatically",
            then wouldn't that have to be noticed to work?
   <Julian> Yes, I agree with shew. But I think it _can_ be made more
            explicit, see my last proposal.
<SDGathman> An outside observer might wonder if the council decisions are
            valid with only three members. 
<SDGathman> By mentioning the reduced quorum rule, they know where to look to
            validate the procedings.
   <willix> in practical terms somebody has to call the meeting to order and
            determine there is a quorum present
     <shew> But we do have http://new.openspf.org/Council_Resolution/3
     <shew> An outside observer would have to see something was up.
<SDGathman> Outside observers are necessarily intimately familiar with council
            rules.
   <Julian> The new resolution is more specific than #3, so it obviously
            overrides #3 in the specific case.
     <shew> Now, if we had a MIA situation and had four people, that could be
            an invisible situation and catch the MIA member off guard I guess
            through the next month.
   <Julian> Guys, please...
   <Julian> What about my last proposal?
     <shew> Julian:  I agree. I was simply addressing the outside-observer
            issue.
     <shew> Wording:  Change "to not having taken" to "to have not taken".
     <shew> oops.
     <shew> no, that's correct.
     <shew> Change to "to have not taken".
   <Julian> Which one is correct?
   <Julian> OK.
   <Julian> Although it sounds odd.
   <Julian> No, I reject that wording. It sounds too odd for me.
     <shew> I think it's a german/english difference.
   <Julian> I'm not comparing it to German grammar.
     <shew> "to have not taken" versus the more german-sounding "to having not
            taken".
     <shew> oh
     <shew> ok
   <Julian> "When a council member is determined to have not taken part in
            ..."?
     <shew> Yes.
   <Julian> Hmm, alright.
   <Julian> Whatever you say. If it's wrong, it's your fault. :-P
     <shew> Separate question for everyone else than the actual issue at
            hand--does that sound correct?
     <shew> Haha.
     <shew> You can even kick me out of the council for it if you like.   If I
            continue to disagree with you for three months and there's a vote.
            :-)
     <shew> SDGathman:  Does Julian's new wording address your concern?  (And
            what is your opinion on the "to have not taken part" bit?)
   <Julian> OK, let me paste the (hopefully) final version:
   <Julian> When a council member is determined to have not taken part in
            council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing
            lists for one month, they are automatically considered 'missing in
            action' (MIA) and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily
            reduced to three until the MIA member returns.
   <Julian> If a member continues to be MIA for one more month, or can be
            reached after having been MIA, but a satisfactory excuse cannot
            not be obtained from them, they may be declared 'inactive' by a
            majority of three of the remaining council.
   <Julian> A council member who is inactive, or who voluntarily resigns from
            the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the
            prior council election who consents to joining the council.
   <Julian> --
<SDGathman> The assumption is that when the moderator mentions the reduced
            quorum, that is the mark?
     <shew> No, when the "determination" occurs
   <Julian> Well, I think "determination" means "someone notes it, and a
            majority does not object".
     <shew> Right.
<SDGathman> Ok, that is good enough.
     <shew> Then I have a minor question.
   <Julian> Shoot.
     <shew> Should the "majority of" be deleted?
   <Julian> Probably.
   <Julian> It would have to be replaced by "at least".
     <shew> Arguments either way really.
   <Julian> Insofar, I don't see the point.
     <shew> You have a quorum of three, meaning you need two of those three.
   <willix> yes, please delete "majority", it should be at least 3
   <Julian> shew: Oh, you're right.
   <Julian> OK, here it comes:
   <Julian> Motion:
   <Julian> When a council member is determined to have not taken part in
            council meetings or ongoing discussion on the council mailing
            lists for one month, they are automatically considered 'missing in
            action' (MIA) and the quorum for council meetings is temporarily
            reduced to three until the MIA member returns.
   <Julian> If a member continues to be MIA for one more month, or can be
            reached after having been MIA, but a satisfactory excuse cannot
            not be obtained from them, they may be declared 'inactive' by at
            least three of the remaining council.
   <Julian> A council member who is inactive, or who voluntarily resigns from
            the council, shall be replaced by the next best winner of the
            prior council election who consents to joining the council.
   <Julian> --
   <Julian> s/at least three/at least three members/
   <Julian> (editorial nit)
   <Julian> Any seconds?
   <willix> motion seconded
   <Julian> Votes on 2039u?
     <shew> Wait.
   <Julian> Hrrm.
   <Julian> Whazzup?
     <shew> Do you not want to add in temporary things at the moment?
     <shew> Temporary leave.
   <Julian> I don't think we have the time.
   <willix> not right now, perhaps with another resolution when its needed
   <Julian> right now.
     <shew> It would fit right in if you had perfect text all ready.  (I
            don't.)
     <shew> Okay.
<SDGathman> I agree.  Motion so far handles current situation.
   <Julian> I think it can be amended easily.
   <Julian> (later)
     <shew> Thank you for the out-of-order quick discussion.
   <Julian> Votes on 2039u?
     <shew> 2039u: Agree
<SDGathman> 2039u agree
   <willix> 2039u: yes
   <Julian> 2039u: yes
   <Julian> So ordered.
   <Julian> Thank you.