RE: [legalxml-courtfiling]

["O'Brien, Robert" <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>]

Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling]

ECF TC:
 This may have some relevance for today's call


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott McGrath [mailto:scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Fri 11/19/2010 8:13 PM
To: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Laurent Liscia
Subject: [legalxml-sc] Member Section or Technical Committees - where should the energy go?

We need to bring to conclusion a dialogue I started in July about the future
need for the administrative overhead of the Member Section and Steering
Committee.  Being honest, I think we can all agree that we need to improve
the situation for your Member Section and Steering Committee.  You folks are
shouldering too much responsibility with diminishing returns.  I wonder if
there is a better option for you.

When we last discussed this, the feeling I got was hope that the Stanford
panel would help bring the energy and participation to share the burden of
your SC work.  Did it?

To review my observations expressed some months ago:
- (First, channeling the LegalXML founders) The Member Section and
specifically the SC was necessary to manage the balance between the very
powerful factions in the legal publishing field, the ABA and courts.  That
problem seems to have been successfully managed and no longer seems to keep
folks up at night.
- The SC is operating below the minimum required number of members and no
longer has the necessary participation of the ABA.  Therefore a revised
Rules of Procedure is necessary to continue as a Member Section.  this will
be some work, but not impossible.
- The SC seems to struggle to meet regularly or to achieve quorum when
meetings are called.  Call me a fool, but I call that success for the group
- there are no burning problems that need your attention, nothing dragging
you away from your more vlauable work in your TCs, in your real job etc
- the Board has expressed their concerns about the Member Section budget.
- Unfortunately, the administrative burden of the Member Section falls
predominantly on you remaining SC members, with diminishing returns for you.

Going forward, several options exist for you, listed here ordered by the
amount of work imposed on you.  You should decide which delivers the values
you need.

You can declare victory and close the Member Section.  this will allow you
to focus your time and energy on the TC work, creating any new TCs focused
on Adoption, etc. (BTW, I do like the NIEM focus, I see some opportunities
there)

You can do the above and continue as an unfunded Member Section (as half our
Member Sections are).  This will require a revised Rules Of Procedure and
some interest and support form the Member Section members.

You can continue as a funded Member Section.  This will require the above,
plus convincing the board that there is sufficient need and interest to
develop and manage the Member Section Spending Plan and that the plan will
deliver sufficient member value to warrant it.

If you go unfunded either with the Member Section and Steering Committee or
without, you naturally should wonder what about the budget issues. With very
little spent in the past few years, one might ask how much administration
you want to share to get that control.  But, let me point out an alternative
view.  The Member Section SC funding comes from that portion of dues that is
promotional/adoption focused and is more discretionary in nature.  Where
there is a funded Member Section the SC is responsible for managing those
funds, making the decisions.  Where the MS is not funded, or an unaffiliated
TC, staff handles that for you.  This explains why most TCs and MS are not
funded, but are still having webinars, etc

Can I ask that we schedule a SC meeting for the week of November 29?  We are
finalizing the 2011 budget and want to make sure I have your interests
properly understood and documented.

Thanks,

Scott...