chairs message
[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
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:04:05 -0400
Why is it that we exclude Observers
from posting to the email list? Is it a suspicion that lowering the bar
too much will overwhelm the email list with junk postings? If so (I think
it likely would), I would prefer adding a role requiring the chair's permission
(oversight) which is allowed to post emails, but not vote. We (WSRP) have
also had the experience of people who subscribe to the email list in order
to follow/participate in topics of interest to them without committing
the time to follow all the threads of discussion. These people are generally
willing to give up the right to vote, but I would think the open nature
of OASIS would want to provide them a voice in the process.
Rich Thompson
| Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
07/03/2003 10:35 AM
|
To:
jon.bosak@sun.com
cc:
chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
Re: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS
TC Member Attendance Rules |
Why not just allow an idefinite length of time for
"Prospective
Member" or "Observer" status? That avoids the question altogether.
However, since most TCs allow any OASIS member to subscribe to the
private TC mailing list, I'm not quite sure why the non-voting member
status ever came up in the first place. I must have missed that.
However, participant is okay by me, too.
Rex
At 10:58 AM -0700 7/2/03, 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
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email: rexb@starbourne.com
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgroup.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]