[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [obix] RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
Excuse me. I got confused by the terms [again] What we opted for was RF On Limited Please initiate the Transfer Approval process. I will not explain what twisted my mind around, because it would only lead others astray. -----Original Message----- From: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:08 AM To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com; oBIX@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [obix] RE: FW: oBIX IP vote... 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 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]