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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Title: Re: [huml-comment] Request for a motion on PC-33 -Sect

Thanks Ranjeeth,

We will consider this a motion, and I will second it, and the vote is called as outlined below. Please vote promptly.

The vote will begin Sunday and be final next Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2002. Please continue the discussion if you have further comments. While I suspect most of us have pretty firm opinions by now, I can say for myself that a very good argument either way could change my vote. Basically, for me, it would require proof that removing it would invalidate our work for me to favor keeping it. Len's arguments hold sway for me now in favor of removing it. However, I would prefer a stronger reason than that it simply can be shown to be non-objective despite current usages, and it can be derived from the existing PBS in a secondary schema, and it can be imported or declared from other interoperable resources. Those are sufficient, but not compelling reasons, whether reapplicable or not.

Ciao,

Rex

At 9:10 AM -0500 12/5/02, Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga wrote:

> 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

-- 

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