OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

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

+1 on Eduardo's suggestion. The current process of how new members join
the XRI TC has been confusing to both Gabe Wachob and I as chairs and to
Marc Le Maitre as secretary. We're never sure if a "new member" has
joined the mailing list or has joined to become a prospective member of
the TC.

Having separate buttons/processes for the two different tracks, and
having this status clearly reflected and managable in the Kavi
interface, would solve this problem.


-----Original Message-----
From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:08 AM
To: karl.best@oasis-open.org
Cc: Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS TC Member Attendance Rules

Karl F. Best wrote:
> 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.

Jon may be talking about this, not me...I believe that the
confusion (as witnessed by postings received after yours)
will intensify and become untenable the longer
the distinction between TC membership and email list privileges
continues being blurred.

We started with a clear concept: one could be a member in a TC
by following certain procedures defined in the process; as a side
effect of that one would also have RW privileges in the TC email
list. And the chair could grant, upon request, email privileges to
people outside the TC.

So far so good.

Then Kavi came, and suddenly one could be a TC member without voting
rights, or a TC member without voting rights and only read privileges
on the email list, or a prospective member with voting rights, and who
knows what else, and the distinction between TC membership and alias
membership was totally destroyed, both in language and, apparently,
in concept...

And reading Jon's statement below, it seems that he and I are actually
in total agreement; let me repeat what he says, with emphasis added:

"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 ... of a TC."

IOW, what John is proposing is a mail list category, not a TC category;
as such, what he proposes should not touch on the TC process.

What *I* would like to see, instead of a button that says "Join this
TC" in a TC's home page, is two buttons, one which says the same and
upon being pressed instructs the user to send email to the chair of the
TC, as per the TC process, and a second button, this one saying: "Join
this TC's mailing list(s)", which then instructs the user how to join
the email lists. Two different buttons for two different processes. And
of course the roster pages manipulated by the chairs would have to
change too...

> Right now the TC Process defines a TC member (who I've set up in Kavi
> 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,
>>>>        chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>    Seems like I said something that was open to misinterpretation.
>>>>    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
>>>> not
>>>>    the other way around..." was not meant in any way to disparage
>>>>    participation of observers in the mailing lists. What I did
>>>>    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
>>>>    of the TC because he/she has qualified according to the rules,
>>>>    is false, and that some ballots may allow only members with
>>>>    privileges to vote, which is also false, because according to
>>>>    process there are no such ballots, IOW only voting members
>>>>    is the only kind of *TC* members there are) can vote...
>>>>    So it's not that I'm unhappy with the functionality of the
>>>>    lists; it the language and lack of differentiation between
>>>>    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
>>>> 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
>>>>    > that can only contribute minimally and cannot commit to
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>    > 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;
>>>>    > 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
>>>>    > am finding the category that allows observers to post on
>>>>    > 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
>>>>    > 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
>>>>    > not making rapid progress on fixing this....
>>>>    >    > Jon
>>>> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting

Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail:
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair

You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]