[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] TC Process revisions released
I concur with Duane on the "excused absence" route. We use the same
mechanism in several non-standards groups, such as school governing
bodies, with the added concept of an "approved absence", where members
formally accept the legitimacy of the excuse for absence.
Howard Mason
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: 09 May 2005 21:45
Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark;
mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] TC Process revisions released
*** WARNING ***
This mail has originated outside your organization, either from an
external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
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/9
623/
> 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#rober
ts_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
***********
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]