RE: [wg-d] Real Time Meeting and New Agenda Items

["Michael D. Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com>]

We agreed that this made sense and that we would examine objective means of
recalling a Chair and empanelling a new one as a substitute for the defined
rules for motions and voting, etc. that are currently in the draft.

What do you think?

I think including a mechanism to impeach a Chair is desirable and gives
participants a sense of security in the process. However, the actual
mechanics is of some concern. Would both the elected co-chair and the NC
liaison co-chair both be subject to impeachment? Perhaps the ideal mechanism
will be for the disenfranchised participants to request the issue be put to
a vote by one of the other co-chairs. If both co-chairs refuse to take
action, then a petition to the NC would be the most likely course of action.

I believe that the vote to remove a co-chair should require a consensus vote
and that the vote to remove should be coupled with a co-chair replacement
choice. Here is my concern, multiple factions want a co-chair removed. They
join forces and agree that they will elect co-chair A after removing the
current co-chair. After the impeachment is complete, the one faction with a
majority interest changes its mind and elects B as the replacement co-chair.
The minority faction has now been taken advantage of by the majority
faction.


 * What happens if a WG cannot reach a consensus position?


Let me sleep on this one :)



 * Role of the General Assembly (NEW!)

I agree in principle that the GA should have a more active role in the WG
process - how to make this happen is less clear.



          -- Bret