Re: [orms] Charter proposal

[Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>]

Nat

where does the TC Process state that we cannot clarify or re-charter  
at any time?

I simply do not understand the argument that it is finalized, in the  
sense that we can clarify or recharter as appropriate at any time.

Moreover the wording changes we are discussing seem like  
clarification, including the normative portion.

I guess we disagree which is why the process allows TC votes.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On May 14, 2008, at 11:21 AM, ext Sakimura Nat wrote:

> Well, what do you mean by entirely incorrect? Do you mean that you  
> did not have chances to comment and modify the charter before it  
> was finalized (point #1) or you did not agree on the Chater+IPR  
> combination to join the TC (point #2)?
>
> For point #3, I think it would be plausible to change the text when  
> it started to become apparent that the change is required during  
> the course of the TC work, but we have not yet done it. The  
> intention of 2.11 and 2.12 of the TC process is for this, I think.  
> Besides, 2.12 is essentially terminating one TC and creating  
> another. This is the same as the standard contract that we may  
> modify it after certain amount of time to improve it.
>
> I am quoting the 2.11 here:
>
> --------------------------
> 2.11 TC Charter Clarification
> A TC may clarify its Charter only for the purpose of removing  
> ambiguity or for narrowing the scope of the topic defined by the  
> Charter. The TC may not broaden or otherwise change its scope of  
> the topic of work. The list of deliverables may be expanded only if  
> the new deliverables are within the scope of the topic.
>
> Approval for clarification shall require a Special Majority Vote of  
> the TC. The clarification of the Charter may occur no earlier than  
> the first meeting of the TC. The TC Chair shall notify the TC  
> Administrator that a motion has been made to clarify the Charter,  
> and the TC Administrator shall set up and conduct the ballot.
>
> The TC Administrator may prevent the proposed clarification from  
> coming to vote if it is not in conformance with OASIS policies. The  
> TC Administrator must within 15 days either open the ballot or  
> reply to the TC with the reason why the change cannot be voted  
> upon. The clarified Charter shall not take effect until approved  
> and announced by the TC Administrator. The TC Administrator shall  
> publicize approved changes as specified in Section 2.8 and any  
> revisable publicly visible description (e.g., web page) promulgated  
> by the TC shall be updated to reflect such changes.
> --------------------------------
> As it is clearly written, Charter Clarification is only for (a)  
> removing ambiguity or (b) narrowing the scope.
>
> For (a), footnotes should suffice. This is my point #4. (Actually,  
> if it is something that could have been written as a footnote, then  
> I am ok to retrofit to the main text, but starting to change them  
> directly would likely to cause too liberal changes.)
> For (b), one has to demosntrate that the change is actually  
> narrowing the scope. I have not seen this in the discussion.
>
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
>
> ________________________________________
> 差出人: Frederick Hirsch [frederick.hirsch@nokia.com]
> 送信日時: 2008年5月14日 23:35
> 宛先: Sakimura Nat
> CC: Frederick Hirsch; orms@lists.oasis-open.org
> 件名: Re: [orms] Charter proposal
>
> This is entirely incorrect.
>
> The Committee can agree to clarify or change the charter at any time
> for whatever reasons may make sense to the TC and has the right to do
> so.
>
> These actions are at the discretion of the TC and require a Special
> Majority vote of the TC.
>
> See 2.11 and 2.12 in the TC Process
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#charterClarification
>
> In this case I believe we are discussing clarification, which is
> entirely reasonable.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On May 14, 2008, at 10:05 AM, ext n-sakimura@nri.co.jp wrote:
>
>> Here is my observation on on the activities trying to change the
>> Charter text after a bit of contemplation.
>>
>> 1.    There has been a period that you could amend the charter. You
>> have not acted during the period.
>> 2.    By becoming a member of the TC after the period, all the member
>> have agreed to the Charter text and the IPR. This is a binding
>> contract. If the text is changed, you have to go back to your legal
>> department etc. to get an approval again.
>> 3.    It is not a sound behavior trying to change the contract text
>> just after having singed it. Trying to change the charter text at
>> the outset of the TC is akin to this.
>> 4.    Therefore, I am against any change to the text of the normative
>> portion of the charter. The charter clarification should be limited
>> to be an acknowledgement of ambiguity in the actual text and the
>> accompanying footnote for the clarification of the actual text/
>> wording.
>> 5.    As the result, it is not plausible to change the text scores to
>> something else. We could put a footnote to explain what scores
>> really is, but not changing the normative text itself.
>>
>> I suggest ourselves to limit what we do against the charter to
>> footnotes. Modifying the charter text is not something that we
>> should do now. That is something you had to do in the past.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs  
> in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs  
> in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>