[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS TC Member Attendance Rules
Well, Kavi allows setting RO/RW permissions as well as voting permissions. But it seems to me that we're starting to talk about defining a new type of member under the TC Process. Right now the TC Process defines a TC member (who I've set up in Kavi as RW, voting), Prospective member (RW, non-vote), and other eligible people (an Observer, RO, non-vote). It sounds to me like you're talking about adding a new type of person, the non-voting member (RW, non-vote) who isn't intedning to become a member at this time. I know how to do this in Kavi, but I'm not sure what to call this type of person under the Process. -Karl Eduardo Gutentag wrote: > Why? I thought we were precisely talking about changes to the Kavi > process, *not* the TC process, reflecting in part my concern about > Kavi changing the TC process (which is what you seem to imply in your > note) rather than the TC process influencing how things are presented > in Kavi... > > Karl F. Best wrote: > >> I appreciate the input (and always happy to hear suggestions) but this >> is something that I'll have to bring up with the Board's TC Process >> subcommittee, who is currently working on a revision of the Process >> document. >> >> -Karl >> >> >> >> >> jon.bosak@sun.com wrote: >> >>> It seems that several of us are in agreement on the desirability >>> of creating an official category for members of a TC mailing list >>> who are not also members (strictly speaking) of a TC. The >>> question is what to call this category. Scott likes "nonvoting >>> member" for marketing reasons. Eduardo and I dislike this >>> nomenclature because in parliamentary practice (meaning Robert's, >>> which specifies 99.9 per cent of the rules that govern formal TC >>> operation) the word "member" means "voting member," "voting >>> member" is frowned upon as a term containing a redundancy, and >>> "nonvoting member" is considered to be a contradiction in terms. >>> >>> I suggest that we try for a category name that does not contain an >>> internal contradiction but serves better for marketing purposes >>> than "observer with posting privileges." How about "participant"? >>> That would not only serve almost as well as "member" in the resume >>> scenario but would also have the benefit of truthfully >>> representing the nature of one's involvement in the process. >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:34:26 -0700 >>> From: Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@sun.com> >>> Cc: Jon.Bosak@sun.com, karl.best@oasis-open.org, hlockhar@bea.com, >>> chairs@lists.oasis-open.org >>> >>> Seems like I said something that was open to misinterpretation. So, >>> just in case, I'd like to clarify that my comment, "What I would like >>> to see is for the Kavi process to follow the OASIS TC process and not >>> the other way around..." was not meant in any way to disparage the >>> participation of observers in the mailing lists. What I did mean, >>> though, was that I did not think it was appropriate to munge TC >>> participation with mailing list participation; that until very >>> recently there was no language separating the two, and those who >>> wanted to monitor the lists were invited to join the TCs, thus >>> potentially inflating the ranks of the quorum-busters ;). When a >>> chair goes to the Add a member section of the roster maintenance >>> page, the chair is still told that someone can be added as a member >>> of the TC because he/she has qualified according to the rules, which >>> is false, and that some ballots may allow only members with voting >>> privileges to vote, which is also false, because according to the >>> process there are no such ballots, IOW only voting members (which >>> is the only kind of *TC* members there are) can vote... >>> >>> So it's not that I'm unhappy with the functionality of the mailing >>> lists; it the language and lack of differentiation between mailing >>> lists and TCs that make me less than happy. >>> >>> Scott McGrath wrote: >>> > Allow me to toss out a members' perspective, one that has little >>> to do >>> > with the strictly technical components of TC participation. >>> > > People derive benefits from > 'being a member" of OASIS >>> TCs for a lot of different reasons. Some such >>> > reasons are strictly warm and fuzzy stuff--it makes them feel >>> like an >>> > important part of the process. Further, I would wager OASIS TC >>> > membership is in more than a few employee performance >>> evaluations, goals >>> > etc as a measure of meeting some corporate objective. > > >>> That said, we should be careful not to marginalize or sideline those >>> > that can only contribute minimally and cannot commit to travel, >>> meeting >>> > attendance, concalls at 3am etc I think Jon's point is valid, these >>> > members are an important part of the process and we should find >>> ways to >>> > enable that. (remembering these are dues paying members like all >>> others) >>> > > Notwithstanding the contradictory nature of the term >>> non-voting member, >>> > I think it serves the above needs well and I think one >>> intuitively knows >>> > what these mean. I think grouping those with some valid input with >>> > other non-contributing Observers is less correct than grouping all >>> > contributing persons as members, where only those seeking and >>> abiding by >>> > the restrictions have voting rights, quorum implications etc. >>> > > Scott... >>> > > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: jon.bosak@sun.com [mailto:jon.bosak@sun.com] > Sent: >>> Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:37 PM >>> > To: karl.best@oasis-open.org >>> > Cc: Eduardo.Gutentag@sun.com; Jon.Bosak@sun.com; hlockhar@bea.com; >>> > chairs@lists.oasis-open.org >>> > Subject: Re: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS TC Member >>> Attendance Rules >>> > > I certainly don't disagree with the premise that the kavi >>> > interface should align with the official OASIS TC process, but I >>> > am finding the category that allows observers to post on occasion >>> > to be extremely useful from an organizational standpoint. The >>> > problem, as I see it, lies in calling this category "nonvoting >>> > member," which from a parliamentary standpoint is a contradiction >>> > in terms. The interface should be distinguishing between >>> > "read/write" and "read-only" observers rather than between "voting" >>> > and "nonvoting" members. >>> > > | I'm working an fixes to Kavi to support this, but >>> unfortunately >>> > | it's not going well... >>> > > Since we're starting to depend fairly heavily on the (badly >>> named) >>> > "nonvoting member" category, I'm actually glad to hear that you're >>> > not making rapid progress on fixing this.... >>> > > Jon >>> >>> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting >>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgroup.php >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- ================================================================= Karl F. Best Vice President, OASIS office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648 karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]