[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [amqp-ms] ROP Change discussion Period
Ø
Unless I hear back from those that commented below that they are comfortable with proceeding with the RoP membership being at 11. I will ask Scott to
hold off initiating the vote for RoP attached, which means we will miss having the RoP change ratified by the OASIS board at their meeting the following week of July 23.
Given that we are on a tight timeline to get board approval for the changes, I am fine with proceeding with the proposed revisions as is. From: Matthew Arrott [mailto:marrott@novgp.com]
Ram, et al, Just so we are all clear – on the call on Wednesday we discussed this and came to the agreement that we would stay at 11 for two reasons: 1) based on the principle
of least surprise more change days before putting this to the vote was deemed risky; and 2) OASIS is considering changes to the rules for Steering Committee size to address this very concern. Scott, If you can reiterate the proposed change for our understanding that would be greatly appreciated. All, We are currently on track to commence the vote on Monday for the proposed changes to the our Rules of Procedures (see attachment), which changes the size of the
committee form 17 to 11. I appreciate we now have three comments on the eve of the vote, which implies we need to delay the vote to finalize this discussion and make any necessary change to the RoP. Unless I hear back from those that commented below that they are comfortable with proceeding with the RoP membership being at 11. I will ask Scott to hold off initiating
the vote for RoP attached, which means we will miss having the RoP change ratified by the OASIS board at their meeting the following week of July 23. This has the subsequent effect of delaying our annual SC election process by another month, which means we
will remain in this situation where we do not reach quorum. As a point of reference if the SC size had 11 for the past four months we would have reach quorum in most if not all meetings. Comments on how to proceed are appreciated. Matthew From:
"Barbir, Abbie" <abbie.barbir@bankofamerica.com> Hi I do agree with John here By the way do we have anyone from BofA on the SC regards From:
amqp-ms@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:amqp-ms@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of John O'Hara I would concur - we need to assure that we can get business done. Looking back to the AMQP Working Group we had "steering group" of 6 firms, and getting quorum of 4 could occasionally be tricky even when there were many more people on the meeting. This issue is exacerbated because we need the *right* person from a firm - given these leaders are usually in demand by their own businesses this can lead to challenges. So I support Ram. Cheers John On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Ram Jeyaraman (MS OPEN TECH) <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com> wrote: Her are my comments on the revised RoP [2]: 1.
Given the persistent problems we have had with the Steering Committee (SC) meetings reaching quorum, I strongly suggest reducing the size of the SC to 7 or 9 maximum. The size of 11 suggested in the revised RoP is likely NOT
going to address the severe lack of attendance problems this SC is currently facing. 2.
Section 7 contains the phrase “As part of approving Committee Specification or Committee Note version of their deliverables”. There has been some confusion
about what it actually means from the point of view of implementing it. I suggest rephrasing it as follows: “Prior to approving Committee Specification or Committee Note version of their deliverables.”. Thanks. -----Original Message----- AMQPers, Three members of your Member Section have requested a revision of the Rules of Procedure which govern activities in your Member Section. [1] The ROP, with red-line changes is published for your review. [2] The process for making such a change is described in Section 3.3 of the Member Section Policy [3] and provides a 30 day discussion period for you to discuss this proposal before we ask for your vote. Please take advantage of this discussion period so you may be an informed voter in the upcoming special Majority ballot which will require 2/3 of all qualified electors to vote "yes" in order that this change is accepted. Please send your comments to this AMQP Member Section mail list [4], thanks for your involvement, Scott... -- [1]
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/amqp-ms/email/archives/201206/msg00010.html [3]
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/member-sections [4]
amqp-ms@lists.oasis-open.org Scott McGrath COO Fax
+1 781-425-5072 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
amqp-ms-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail:
amqp-ms-help@lists.oasis-open.org This message w/attachments (message) is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
proprietary. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, and then please delete and destroy all copies and attachments, and be advised that any review or dissemination of, or the taking of any action in reliance on, the information contained
in or attached to this message is prohibited. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]