[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep] Result of Query Ballot
I agree with what Lisa suggests here. > ballots. I propose that any proposal that results in an > 'invalid' ballot > should be resubmitted to the TC (with changes or not) and > re-balloted. If > we have another 'invalid' ballot....hopefully we won't cross > that bridge. A ballot that does not achieve quorum should be considered "not yet approved" and should be balloted again. It may be wise to find the cause of the non-quorum before trying again. Is it because of not enough time to consider? Proposal not clearly written? Everyone attending a conference that week? </karl> ================================================================= Karl F. Best OASIS - Director, Technical Operations 978.667.5115 x206 karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Lisa Carnahan [mailto:lisa.carnahan@nist.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:48 PM > To: Dan Chang > Cc: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [regrep] Result of Query Ballot > > > > Hi Dan and TC members, > > Back in June we agreed to a voting process for documents within the > TC. (The process for a TC voting to move a document to a > vote by the OASIS > membership ballot is well documented by OASIS procedures.) > The process we > agreed to was that (1) for a ballot to be valid (Scott H.: > your word is > more appropriate than mine, the Query ballot is 'invalid' > rather than 'not > approved') a simple majority of TC members who have a voting > status must > vote and (2) of those voting, a simple majority must vote > approve for the > proposal to be approved. > > The OASIS Procedure document does state that a TC member who > has not voted > in 80% of the ballots in a 90 day period are removed from the > committee - > so there is a penalty for not voting. > > Since we are somewhat on new territory here (I did not > anticipate apathy(?) > in our votes), we must define a process that is fair for > handling invalid > ballots. I propose that any proposal that results in an > 'invalid' ballot > should be resubmitted to the TC (with changes or not) and > re-balloted. If > we have another 'invalid' ballot....hopefully we won't cross > that bridge. > > To those that did not ballot the Query Proposal: are there any > comments/changes that would serve to have you vote? A few of > you have > mentioned to me privately that you did not have time to read > the proposal > and therefore did not feel comfortable voting. If you are > given more time > in a re-ballot, will you vote? Is five days not enough time? > > I share Dan's opinion that obviously, the Query Chapter has > to be updated > to reflect the changes to the RIM. We must come out of the > face-to-face > with these changes in place. > > Dan: do you wish to re-submit the Query Proposal for a TC Ballot? > > --lisa > > > At 09:25 AM 10/24/2001 -0700, you wrote: > > >Lisa, > > > >I am very puzzled and disturbed by the process. Somehow not > voting is being > >counted as disapprove. That is, nine people did not > vote/care and therefore > >they have disapproved the Query proposal?! > > > >It will be totally wrong for V2 to be published with the > existing Object > >Query Management chapter. The chapter is outdated and, > therefore, wrong. If > >the Query proposal is not approved, V2 should be published > with the chapter > >removed. > > > >I am new to the OASIS process, but I am familiar with the > OMG process. With > >the OMG process, a quorum is established not as half of all > voting members, > >but as half of all consistently-participating voting members, which > >protects active members and the process as a whole. > > > >Regards, Dan > > > >Metadata Management Technology and Standard > >IBM DBTI for e-Business > >Notes: Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS > >Internet: dtchang@us.ibm.com > >VM: IBMUSM50(DTCHANG) > >Phone: (408)-463-2319 > > > > > > > > > > Lisa > > Carnahan > > > > <lisa.carnahan To: > > regrep@lists.oasis-open.org > > @nist.gov> cc: > > > > Subject: > [regrep] Result of > > Query Ballot > > 10/24/01 > > 07:49 > > AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >The Query Proposal is not approved because the number of TC > members casting > > > >a ballot was not a simple majority of TC voting members. We > agreed as a TC > > > >that a simple majority must cast ballots for the vote to be > valid. We > >needed 9 ballots for the vote to be valid. The results are > as follows: > > > >Bruce Bargmeyer - did not vote > >Kathryn Breininger - approve > >Dan Chang - approve > >Joe Chiusano - abstain > >Suresh Damodaran -did not vote > >Anne Fischer - approve > >Sally Fuger - did not vote > >Len Gallagher - approve > >Jong Kim - did not vote > >Joel Munter - did not vote > >Farrukh Najmi - disapprove > >Sanjay Patil - did not vote > >Neal Smith -disapprove > >Nikola Stojanovic - did not vote > >Prasad Yendluri - did not vote > >Yutaka Yoshida - did not vote > > > >If I have incorrectly represented your action, please let me > know ASAP. > > > >--lisa > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- > >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC