[huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Section 4.4.6-race

[Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga <rkthunga@interposting.com>]

Title: Request for a motion on PC-33 -Section 4.4.6-race

Based on Rex's recommendation, I am formally requesting a vote on the term "race".  I'm CC:ing the comments lists, as input was gained from there, and the request was initially posted there.  However, from my understanding of OASIS policy, it will only be TC members who will be allowed the privilege to actually vote, even during the public comments period.

Specifically, we would like to vote on whether or not to drop the term race from the Primary Base Schema 1.0 Specification race, from the attributeGroup of Section 4.4.6 physicalDescriptors.

Also based on Rex's suggestion, voting should voting Sunday, with the vote being final by next Wednesday, December 11, one day before the end of the public comment period.  I'm including  Rex's original comments, as is, below.

Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga
---------------
From Rex Brooks:
> Hi Ranjeeth, I am copying the TC lists with this request with the proviso, or caveat, that it is intended for you alone, but was not appropriate as a private communication on so important an issue. So, the public and lurkers on the TC lists should not consider this an invitation for a discussion on TC policy. I have asked twice, informally for a motion to call a vote on this issue. This issue itself is fairly simple, but the reasons for retaining or deleting it are not. I would then set the period for continued discussion at the remainder of this week, and ask for voting TC committee members to begin voting Sunday, with the vote being final by next Wednesday, December 11, one day before the end of the public comment period. Otherwise, it will have to be decided during our next meeting, which, during the holidays is likely to lack a quorum again. I submit that allowing this issue to hold us up would the extend, in all likelihood, until the January Meeting.

Could you perhaps post a formal motion to remove the term race from the attributeGroup of Section 4.4.6 physicalDescriptors? I think we need to call a vote on it on the TC mailing list. As the chair for this deliverable, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do that. As far as a reapplicable rationale is concerned, I think you could state that as :

"The reapplicable rationale for such a motion and vote is: a vote on a motion should be called for when the motion will decide a specific issue with an element, attribute or member of a complexType, attributeGroup or other principle component of a Human Markup Language Specification raised during the public comment period by a member of the public other than members of the TC who have already voted on the specification, or participants in the TC who regularly attend meetings or work with the TC by invitation.

Further, the rationale for this action is that the issue must also initiate a significant amount of discussion and contention, which is a subjective judgment, but which is intended to prevent the intentional obstruction and/or indefinite delay of the work through the introduction of trivial issues. As such, the judgment on whether to call for a motion on an issue is the prerogative of the chair for that work, e.g., a subcommittee chair would decide for the subcommittee specification and the vice chair heading this effort decides for this deliverable, the PBS." Chairs who refuse to make such a decision when it is clearly called for will certainly face being removed from that position. That, I suspect, would act as a sufficient deterrent for chairs indulging in obstruction themselves. I think we could then vote on this and put it to rest. I expect that we will decide to retire the term race from this specification.

Ciao, Rex -- Rex Brooks Starbourne Communications Design 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309 http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com