RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...

["Considine, Toby \(Facilities Technology Office\)" <Toby.Considine@unc.edu>]

Good - then under the TC Process, and using only voting members, the TC,
with a quorum of voting members, and with no abstentions or dissensions,
has approved a transition of the IP of the oBIX TC to RF under RAND on
Tuesday May 16 and is submitting a Transition Request to operate under
the RF under RAND. 

Please initiate an OASIS IP Transition Approval ballot for oBIX.

Toby Considine
oBIX Co-Chair

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:40 AM
To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office); 'James Bryce Clark';
mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com
Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...

Hi Toby,

  Only Voting members count towards quorum - it sounds like there might
be
something wrong with oBIX's Kavi setup. Thankfully Kavi doesn't make the
rules -
the TC process does.

Regards,

Mary 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) 
> [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:26 AM
> To: James Bryce Clark; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com
> Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> 
> While most of the voting members were in attendance, we did 
> nit have a quorum of the members (which is what KAVI wants). 
> 
> This leaves a process question. Everyone has agreed in 
> numerous meetings (but without roll called). The primary 
> contributor has not only declared himself in violent 
> agreement, but has put up an implementation on SourceForge...
> 
> So does that mean I now must create a sense of committee 
> vote? It seems odd to vote based on a quorum of members that 
> has no relationship to the voting members...100% of the 
> voting members is still not a quorum by KAVI standards...
> 
> tc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:58 PM
> To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office); 
> mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com
> Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> 
>      Let me toss in a few comments, inserted below.  
> Apologies to Toby:
> We
> obviously aren't doing a good enough job of clearly conveying 
> what's in the 
> IPR transition policy and its FAQ.   (URIs both cited below.)
>      It seems like you *may* already HAVE completed a 
> Transition Request
> 
> Ballot, but I have to rely on Toby to reach and Mary to confirm that 
> conclusion.   See below.
>      Regards  Jamie
> 
> At 09:14 AM 5/23/2006, Considine, Toby \(Facilities 
> Technology Office\)
> wrote:
> >OK, I will put the roll of the last meeting up tonight (it was a
> face2face 
> >at a conference and my notes are at home) I will then launch a 
> >Transition Request Ballot to be completed by the
> end 
> >of the week (a lot of our members are traveling constantly). 
> Does this 
> >need any special format or wording?  We will then submit a 
> Transition 
> >Request to Mary and wait for things to cook...
> 
>      I was at that F2F meeting last week.  I did not count 
> heads, and walked in after it started, but I *thought* it was 
> a quorate 
> meeting.   Here is how I reached that facial-level guess.  (1) There
> were a
> lot of people there.  (2) Toby knows who's really a member, 
> and may already have been able to calculate the then-current 
> number of voting members, taking into account the deadwood, 
> even if the roster had not yet been updated to reflect that.  
> (3) For example if there really were 9 voting members as of  
> that date, quorum would be 5, and if 5 people showed up at a 
> duly called meeting, only "a majority of the votes cast ...as 
> per regular TC voting procedure" would be needed for a 
> Transition Request Ballot, i.,e., a simple majority, so in my 
> example, at least 3 of the 5 voting yes by a voice vote at 
> the meeting.
>      If Toby wants help cleaning up his roster on the 
> database to reflect the current correct membership, I would 
> be happy to provide it, because I am his TC staff contact.  
> Let me know.
>      I respectfully suggest that, if he advises us that the 
> actual numbers for quorum did pan out, then the Transition 
> Request Ballot HAS occurred,
> 
> and all Mary may need now is confirmation.  That is, a note 
> from Toby, cc'd to the TC list, confirming that a majority 
> voted formally to approve the
> 
> mode transition at the duly called meeting.  And then, Mayr 
> can start the second-stage ballot, and yes, as usual, he 
> should follow up with posted minutes.
>      However, please note:  you will need to be absolutely 
> certain in the notice & minutes *which* OASIS policy IPR Mode 
> was selected.  I do not want to put words in the TC's mouth.  
> What is "most restrictive" depends on whether you're looking 
> at it from the licensor or licensee side.  The mode that Toby 
> and I discussed *prior* to the meeting as creating the 
> strongest license obligation, and thus leaving less freedom 
> to the parties obligated to issue license, was "RF on Limited Terms".
> 
> >Special question, if all votes are in in a week, do we still need to
> wait 
> >30 days?
> >tc
> >
> >>From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:41 AM
> >>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> >>Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; Paul 
> >>Ehrlich; James Bryce Clark
> >>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> >>
> >>Hi Toby,
> >>
> >>   Sorry for any confusion I've caused! Here's a link to 
> the actual  
> >>Transition Policy and FAQs - maybe that will help a bit.
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_transition_policy.php
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/transition_faq.php
> >>
> >>Here's sections 3 and 5 from the Transition section (3) of 
> the policy:
> >>
> >>3. Once a TC has reached the 50% threshold, it may conduct 
> a vote to 
> >>submit a Transition Request to operate under the new IPR 
> Policy. The 
> >>Transition Request must specify one of the IPR Modes under 
> the new IPR
> 
> >>Policy as the one under which the TC wishes to operate, and must be 
> >>approved by a majority of the votes cast by the TC Voting 
> Members (as
> per 
> >>regular TC voting procedure) before it can be sent to the TC
> Administrator.
> >>
> >>5. Each Transition Approval Ballot must be preceded by a Transition 
> >>Request Ballot. There is no limit (other than the time 
> limit specified
> 
> >>below in 3.10) to the number of Transition Request and Transition 
> >>Approval Ballots that a TC may conduct until a Transition Approval
> Ballot 
> >>succeeds.
> >>
> >>So what I'm after is evidence of Item 3 above, before I can 
> start item
> 5 
> >>above. For each meeting held, someone should be taking minutes, and
> those 
> >>minutes should be posted to the OASIS site, either as a document, as
> the 
> >>text of an email message, or in the calendar minutes. 
> That's the link
> I'm 
> >>looking for. But you also mention that the TC tends not to achieve
> quorum 
> >>in meetings, which calls into question whether or not a majority of
> the 
> >>TC Voting Members have actually agreed.
> >>In looking at the TC Roster, I see a total of 15 voting members. But
> when 
> >>I look at the attendance records, some of these individuals haven't 
> >>apparently attended a meeting since 2004 which indicates that they
> should 
> >>no longer hold voting privileges and be switched to "member." You
> don't 
> >>want to base your quorum on people that should no longer be 
> considered
> 
> >>voting members so I think a roster clean-up is in order and should 
> >>probably be the first task undertaken. The easiest way to do this is
> to 
> >>look at the minutes for the last 3 meetings and see who 
> attended. If 
> >>someone's name appears twice, they're voting. If their name only
> appears 
> >>once in either meeting #1 or meeting #3 they're demoted to 
> member. If 
> >>they attended meeting #2, you'll need to go back one more to see if
> they 
> >>attended that meeting. If yes, they retain voting rights, if no,
> they're 
> >>demoted to member.
> >>Mary
> >>
> >>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> >>>No, not at all.
> >>>  The Committee has had full and complete running 
> agreement over a  
> >>>number of months. This has included phone calls and meetings at
> which 
> >>> OASIS staff were present, and outlined the IP states. Two 
> weeks ago
> the 
> >>> process was described in San Francisco, and it included clear
> direction 
> >>> that the vote could only be run by OASIS staff. Last week 
> Jamie sat
> in 
> >>> on on our face-to-face in which our intention to move the 
> the least  
> >>>restrictive IP  policy available was confirmed again. I 
> asked Jamie  
> >>>directly "Good - we are all in agreement; how do we make 
> the change  
> >>>official" He indicated that speaking to him would start the ball  
> >>>rolling. and (I thought) that we would start last week.
> >>>This week I reminded him, and he suggest I talk to you. See below.
> >>>Because you requested an artifact, or minutes pointing the 
> decision,
> I 
> >>>then asked you how you would like the vote done (as clear repeated 
> >>>statements of intent and multiple 
> conversations/indications from the 
> >>>chairs are not enough. I asked because I wanted the 
> "artifact" to be
> of 
> >>>a form to meet *your* stated need.
> >>>You have now, apparently, taken this as an indication that no 
> >>>conversation has been had yet. I can see why not so many 
> TCs have yet
> 
> >>>converted...
> >>>Let me summarize:
> >>>- The TC has had multiple conversations on IP, many with 
> OASIS staff
> present
> >>>- It is the clear intent of the TC to convert before the document 
> >>>currently being prepared for Public Review becomes a standard.
> >>>- We have not voted only because OASIS has indicated that 
> only OASIS
> may 
> >>>run an IP conversion vote.
> >>>- We are waiting for clear direction on how to get the conversion
> begun 
> >>>ASAP.
> >>>thanks  tc
> >>>
> >>>>From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com]
> >>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:53 AM
> >>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> >>>>Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark
> >>>>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> >>>>
> >>>>Hi Toby, So are you saying that the TC hasn't yet voted? I would
> then 
> >>>>open up a discussion on the TC email list to see what 
> everyone feels
> 
> >>>>they can agree to; once you have consensus via email you 
> can start a
> 
> >>>>Kavi ballot for that particular mode.  Mary
> >>>>
> >>>>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> >>>>>As we rarely get an actual quorum at a meeting, all of our votes
> are 
> >>>>>in Kavi.
> >>>>>Does the vote need to be of the form "3 Modes, pick one" 
> or can it
> be 
> >>>>>of the form "Shall we change to Free RAND, Y/N"?  tc
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:42 PM
> >>>>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> >>>>>>Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Hi Toby,
> >>>>>>   In order to begin the process the TC first holds a vote
> regarding 
> >>>>>> the specific mode they wish to adopt. The Transition 
> Request must
> 
> >>>>>> specify one of the IPR Modes under the new IPR Policy 
> as the one 
> >>>>>> under which the TC wishes to operate, and must be 
> approved by a 
> >>>>>> majority of the votes cast by the TC Voting Members (as per
> regular 
> >>>>>> TC voting procedure) before it can be sent to the TC
> Administrator.
> >>>>>>Please send me a link to the meeting minutes where the vote is 
> >>>>>>recorded so I can begin the 30-day counter and determine the
> actual 
> >>>>>>voting representatives.
> >>>>>>Thanks, and it was great to finally get to meet you in SF!!
> >>>>>>All the best,
> >>>>>>Mary
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> >>>>>>>Mary, oBIX would like to launch a conversion vote on IP to the
> least 
> >>>>>>>restrictive variety, which, if I am not mistaken is 
> the RF-RAND 
> >>>>>>>Can you please assist...
> >>>>>>>tc
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
> >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:40 PM
> >>>>>>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> >>>>>>>>Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: oBIX IP vote...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>     Toby:  Sort of, yes.  Could you send a pointer for the 
> >>>>>>>> statement, message or minutes that say "we voted to start a
> ballot 
> >>>>>>>> to transition to RF on Limited" to Mary McRae 
> (copied here) & 
> >>>>>>>> I?  She will launch ballot but we need an artifact to do it 
> >>>>>>>> with.  Apologies if I have missed one.
> >>>>>>>>    Delighted to see your team last week, and the strong
> industry 
> >>>>>>>> opportunities there.  More to follow up on once 
> we're both back
> 
> >>>>>>>> home.  Regards  Jamie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>At 11:42 AM 5/22/2006, Considine, Toby \(Facilities Technology
> >>>>>>>>Office\) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>My troops are getting restless - we-d like to get this out of
> the 
> >>>>>>>>>way...
> >>>>>>>>>Are you waiting on me?
> >>>>>>>>>tc
>