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] TC Process revisions released


Diane, Steve:

I concur.  If a member comes to 4 meetings in a row, misses one, attends 
one, then misses another one, they are no longer deemed a member by 
these rules, despite an overwhelming amount of participation. Since most 
of my TC is required to travel as part of their jobs, this scenario is 
highly possible.

I would prefer a notion of excused absences.  If someone contacts the 
chair before the meeting, explains why they cannot make it but still 
offers input for the meeting and then reviews the notes & minutes, I 
find they are more helpful than the type who may actually attend but not 
participate in the conversation in any way.

I would like to ask if anyone would be opposed in principle to reviewing 
this?

Duane

Diane Jordan wrote:

>
> I also have a question about this -  the new policy seems to say that 
> members should  lose voting rights any time they miss 2 out of 3 
> meetings.  This seems overly harsh.  Previously it took consistently 
> missing 2 out of 3 meetings to lose rights (assuming members responded 
> to the warning appropriately).  
>  
> Regards, Diane
> IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards
> drj@us.ibm.com
> (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709
>
>
>
> "Anderson, Steve" <Steve_Anderson@bmc.com>
>
> 05/09/2005 03:15 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>, 
> chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
> 	mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Subject
> 	RE: [chairs] TC Process revisions released
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't know if this was just added or if I simply missed it before, but I
> have a concern about the policy on maintaining voting status.  The new
> policy [1] says that upon missing 2 out of 3 successive meetings, the 
> member
> loses voting status -- period.  It says a warning MAY be sent (not 
> sure when
> -- after the first absence?), but that loss of voting status does not 
> depend
> on such a warning.
>
> Under the current good standing policy, missing 2 out of 3 consecutive
> meetings results in a warning.  Loss of voting status only occurs if the
> member misses the next meeting.  That means that it takes missing 3 
> out of 4
> meetings (and a warning) to lose status.
>
> I can see why removing the warning from the process is valuable.  But the
> automatic loss of voting status after missing only 2 out of 3 meetings
> (rather than 3 out of 4) is, IMO, unreasonable, particularly given the
> lengthy and non-automatic process for regaining voting status.  Normal 
> "day
> job" requirements are likely to cause absence in 2 out of 3 meetings more
> often that the LOA process is designed to accommodate.
> --
> Steve Anderson
> BMC Software
>
> [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process_2005.04.15.php#2.4
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 10:36 PM
> To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Subject: [chairs] TC Process revisions released
>
>     The approved revised OASIS TC Process rules, effective 15 April 2005,
> are posted to the OASIS web site at [1], and on the effective date will
> also be moved to  the main page for the TC Process at [2].   We will 
> apply
> the effective date as follows:  Any TC action that was initiated on or
> before 14 April will be able to complete that action according to the 
> 2003
> TC Process rules.  Any action initiated on or after 15 April will be
> governed by the 2005 revisions.  (So, for example, the three OASIS 
> Standard
> ballots pending this month, announced 1 April, will complete under the 
> old
> rules.)
>
>     These rules, approved by our Board of Directors at their last 
> meeting,
> generally follow the structure of Member Review Draft released last 
> October
> (at [3]), although a number of additional revisions were made to take 
> into
> account the comments we received from members during that review.
>
>     A summary of the principal changes is appended below, and shortly 
> will
> be posted to [4].  We will post a shorter form of this message to the
> [members] list on Friday as well.
>
>     Also, for those of you who wish to track the changes more closely, I
> have attached an unofficial side-by-side parallel table of the 2005 and
> 2003 rulesets, in HTML and RTF formats.  If this seems broadly useful,
> perhaps we also will post it on the website.  It may be more detail 
> than is
> generally needed.  For now it is an informal, extra tool.
>
>     We will discuss the key TC Process changes in the TC Chair F2F
> sessions scheduled during the upcoming OASIS Symposium, see schedule at
> [5], and in a series of global conference calls (as we've done before)
> shortly thereafter.  A significant revision of the OASIS "TC Guidelines"
> also will be issued to reflect these updates.  Of course, you're also
> welcome to contact Mary McRae or myself, your TC's designated Staff
> Contact, or any member of the OASIS staff with questions or comments.
>
> Best regards   Jamie Clark
>
> ~   James Bryce Clark
> ~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS
> ~   jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
>
> [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process_2005.04.15.php
> [2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php.
> [3]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/members-only/download.php/9623/
> TC%20Process20041007.pdf
> [4] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/change_summary_2005.php (to be
> uploaded shortly)
> [5]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium_2005/related_events.php#roberts_r
> ules
>
> ====
>
> OASIS TC PROCESS CHANGE SUMMARY: 2005
>
> This is a summary of the principal changes made to the September 2003
> version of the OASIS TC Process.  These changes were approved by the 
> OASIS
> Board of Directors on 23 March 2005, effective 15 April 2005.  NOTE 
> this is
> not an exhaustive list, and this document is non-normative.
>
> TC attendance no longer affects TC Member status once achieved, nor
> subcommittee membership.  Participants may be either Voting Members or
> non-voting Members of a TC.  Once a  person becomes a TC Member, they
> remain in that state until they resign or cease to be eligible. 
> Attendance
> in a TC's activities only affects voting rights in the TC.  Also, the
> attendance rules have been simplified slightly.
>
> Several changes have been made to TC launch and scoping rules:
>     *  A greater number of proposers is required to launch a
> TC.  ("Minimum Membership" = at least 5 proposers, at least 2 of which 
> must
> be from different organizational members.)
>     *  Participants who are employee representatives of an organizational
> OASIS member require confirmation from that organization when they join a
> TC as a Member.  (Note that becoming a Member has consequences under the
> OASIS IPR Policy.)
>     *  In addition to the current right to "clarify" a charter, a new
> procedure for "rechartering" has been introduced to permit broader 
> changes
> (such as expansion of the scope of a TC).
>
> The advancement process for specifications has been modified:
>     *  Specifications created by the TC but not yet approved are given a
> defined name:  "Working Draft".
>     *  A TC may by a majority vote of all Voting Members (="Full Majority
> Vote") approve interim drafts as a "Committee Draft", to indicate
> transitional stability,  and explicitly invoke the licensing 
> obligations of
> members under the OASIS IPR Policy.  Committee Drafts will not be the 
> focus
> of publicity (though they will of course be publicly available).
>     *    When a TC gives its primary approval of a specification, we will
> once again call that document a "Committee Specification", as was the 
> case
> previously.
>     *    Public reviews will be required prior to, not after, approval of
> a Committee Specification.
>     *    Initial public reviews of specifications will run for 60 days
> (increased from 30, in conformance with international practice), and any
> subsequent reviews for 15 days (reduced from 30).
>
> A number of quality-assurance practices have been added to the
> process.  These include mandated use of specification templates and file
> naming practices, and more explicit rules around minimum public web page
> content, information resources and the like.
>
> Additional defined terms have been added for clarity.
>
> Various terms and cross-references have been updated to coordinate with
> the  recent OASIS IPR Policy revisions.
> ====
>

-- 
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Chair - OASIS Service Oriented Architecture Reference Model Technical Committee - 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Adobe Enterprise Developer Resources  - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/developer/main.html
***********



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