RE: [chairs] Adjustments to your rosters

["Scott McGrath" <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>]

3 comments inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jon.bosak@sun.com [mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 10:31 AM
> To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Adjustments to your rosters
> 
> [scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org:]
> 
> | Jon, I am disappointed by your unfounded conclusion that our
> | motives are anything but keeping members engaged.  Please feel
> | free to continue that dialogue with us, if you still feel that to
> | be true.
> 
> My comment was intended as irony; sorry that didn't come through.
[Scott said:] No problem.  I'd rather an occasional misperceived ironic
statement than animated smiley faces too prevalent elsewhere.
> 
> | However, if anyone has any specific instances of people who do not
> | think they were notified, forward them to me.  (We usually hear
> | quickly when they get the "sorry to see you go" message)
> | Occasionally, I hear from folks that they don't recall seeing the
> | messages.  As we keep copes of all such mail, we can submit them
> | to the persons concerned, to determine what about the mail was
> | cause for being caught in a filter somewhere.
> 
> I will forward the message that alerted me to this problem.
[Scott said:] I think you've already seen my response to that.
> 
> | Second issue is the urban legend of people not being notified of
> | their renewal date.  You can rest assured people are being
> | notified of their renewal, given the 80% renewal rate, it seems to
> | be working, with fair effectiveness.
> 
> So far the renewal rate among the 21 members for which I have
> received removal notices over the last two weeks has been zero.
> This may simply mean that their only reason for obtaining OASIS
> membership was to participate in the development of UBL 1.0, but
> 80 percent it ain't.  If you are making concerted and systematic
> efforts to encourage people whose memberships are expiring to
> renew, please forgive my earlier comments, but I have yet to see
> the results.
[Scott said:] W1th 121 active members now, UBL may expect to see more
members coming and going than smaller committees.  Those 21 notices *may*
reflect changes initiated anytime since March 2003, when we transitioned to
the current database. (though the few I've already looked at ranged back
only as far as about 18 months) Nonetheless, please forward those 21 members
to me, so I can investigate their departure.  

Scott...


> 
> Jon