comments on new process

[Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com>]

Comments on the new process document:
- I agree with the many folks who have
pointed out that restricting the use of tools to only those offered on
the OASIS web site is not appropriate, at least until the tools there are
sufficient to get the work of the TC's done.   It is appropriate to
say that all official work of the TC must be on the web page.  On
the BPEL TC, although we utilize tools for issues lists and editing the
spec that are not available on OASIS, the official versions of these are
available on the web site (and the working versions are visible).  
 

- There's been a lot of discussion about
the new definitions of TC member types.  The reuse of the same terms
with different definitions hasn't helped to clarify this.  It might
have been simpler to either use a completely new term for the new member
type (only getting email's not allowed to discuss - subscriber maybe) and
leaving the other names the same, or rename all types.  Same idea
would apply to the new definition of terms for the draft/approved specs/ap.
 Our TC had just gotten used to the terms in the last process update.


- The super majority vote definition
example needs correcting - it says that if there are 20 voting members
and 14 vote yes and 6 or more vote no the motion fails -  there can't
be more than 6 no's in this example unless someone is voting twice. Based
on the definition of super majority, it should say if 5 or more vote no.
 

- I'm finding the process for a person
to become a TC observer confusing - can someone become an observer without
the approval of the primary representative (document says p.r. must be
notified not approve).  Will the chair have to do anything (today
we need to accept thier membership).  

-  I agree with the previous comment
that there is really no reason for the chair to be involved in approving
members.  If chair involvement continues, I hope that the process
of getting approval from the primary representatives will happen prior
to involvement of the chair.  It would be a burden on the chairs to
have to keep track of this.  

- The process calls for the chair to
send email to the TC for numerous events (new members, loa's, meeting attendance,
minutes of TC meetings).  Almost all of this information is available
on, or can be posted to the TC web site.  In general, the web site
should be the source where possible or at least a valid alternative - no
one needs extra email.  For example, the web site has a calendar entry
with a minutes section and attendance roster - posting information there
should be an alternative to email (its much easier to find later).  
  

- LOA rules are too restrictive and
not necessary.    Since the TC needs to approve any after the
first one per year, issues with frequency and duration can be managed within
the TC where people understand the circumstances and contributions of individuals
rather than via a rule set at the organization level. There are many members
who make good contributions who due to personal or work issues need more
flexibility.   If the rules remain, the oasis web tools need to be
corrected to indicate loa status - this applies to both the attendance
reports and the individual member histories.   As is they're hard
to enforce.
  
- I agree with previous comments about
public comments and would add that the chairs should be subscribed to the
public comment list automatically (It may be just me, but I didn't realize
I wasn't for a long time).  

- section 2k says "... Meetings
scheduled or conducted in such a manner as to exclude the participation
of an TC Member is subject to appeal."  Its virtually impossible
to schedule a meeting without excluding someone - it might be better to
add something about reasonable efforts and possibly majority opinions.
   
- For electronic voting, the definition
of quorum should be included.   

 Regards, Diane
IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709