RE: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS TC Member Attendance Rules

[Kelvin Lawrence <klawrenc@us.ibm.com>]

I fully agree with the comments made
here by Rob and Steve. The Kavi way of joining a TC/Mailing list has really
messed things up and causes a lot of confusion to those of us trying to
look after the interests and voting rights of our TC members. I sent several
mails on this back when the system first went live. It should be possible
to subscribe to a mailing list without joining the TC itself. Kavi has
changed OASIS in many ways including the change from being fully open to
being a mix of fully open, semi private (OASIS only) and fully private(TC
only). I think the tool should be made to fit the rules of the organization
and not the other way around. We need to get the permissions mess fixed
and get the mailing list process fixed.

Cheers
Kelvin

Kelvin R. Lawrence
Distinguished Engineer
Member of the IBM Academy of Technology
IBM Software Group. 11400 Burnet Road, Austin, TX 78758.
Office +1 (512) 838-0924   Mobile +1 (512) 699 1184   Fax: +1
(512) 838-0169  e-mail: klawrenc@us.ibm.com

"Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com>

07/03/2003 01:26 PM

To	"'Drummond Reed'" <drummond.reed@onename.com>, "'karl.best@oasis-open.org'" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>, "'chairs@lists.oasis-open.org'" <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS TC Member Attendance Rules

I agree 100%.  As Steve A mentioned earlier,
having them automatically added
as provisional members and having them move through provisional, then voting
member, then observer states really plays havoc with the quorum
requirements.  It's a burden on the TC when that person just wants
to
monitor the list and never intends to attend meetings. 

But it's more than a simple quorum issue.  It is even tougher on the
TC when
you manage to achieve quorum but need 2/3 of voting members present to
vote
to move specs to TC maturity and to submit them to OASIS.  In a small
TC,
just a couple of folks moving in and out of these states could cause the
TC
to not be able to complete successful CS or submission votes.

Adding the additional enrollment option makes a LOT of sense to me and
doesn't affect the OASIS membership rules and process.

Rob Philpott 
RSA Security Inc. 
The Most Trusted Name in e-Security 
Tel: 781-515-7115 
Mobile: 617-510-0893 
Fax: 781-515-7020 
mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:05 PM
> To: karl.best@oasis-open.org; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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.
> 
> =Drummond
> 
> -----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
> 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_workgr
> oup.php
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Eduardo Gutentag              
|         e-mail:
> eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
> 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
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgr
> oup.php
> 
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> http://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgroup.php

You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgroup.php