RE: [chairs] TC Process revisions released

["Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>]

As an Australian, whose TC meets at 5:30am my time (and who is on
another working group meeting at 1am my time), I appreciate this
sentiment :-)

I'm troubled by the emphasis on meeting attendance. Dialling in and
saying nothing but "Present" on a roll-call is far less of a
contribution than writing a tech-note or portion of a spec, or editing
one. Even contributing to an e-mail discussion can be more important. I
don't want to suggest that writing a tech-note is worth 3 meeting
attendances (or any similar book-keeping exercise), but I feel there's
balance required.

I'm not happy with the idea that a heavily-contributing member (one who
may have proof-read a 400-page spec during the period in question) who
misses two meetings (possibly through no fault of their own) loses their
vote.

Oh, I understand that this is an easy rule to automate, but I'm not
convinced that "easy to automate" is a good measure for whether we
should adopt a mechanism. At the very least, I'd like to see a mechanism
to excuse an absence (even if it requires a vote of the rest of the TC).

Tony Rogers
tony.rogers@ca.com
Co-chair, UDDI Spec TC

-----Original Message-----
From: David Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] 
Sent: Wednesday, 11 May 2005 3:14
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] TC Process revisions released

Drummond,

I would just add a cautionary note here - we could all use work schedule
conflicts as an excuse all the time!  The aim here is to ensure that
those people with voting rights have participated at some level in the
process of developing the specifications.

Occasion un-planned conflicts do arise clearly, and we want to avoid
unduly penalizing persons.

It seems to me that one way of doing this could be to have earned
"credits" - so perhaps for every 6 meetings you have attended in 10, you
get one "credit" to use to count toward your 2 out of 3.

You could also allow people that have actively participated on email to
also vote.  Example - someone in India or Australia finds it very tough
to attend teleconference calls that are at 3am local time - since the
rest of the
group are on California time.   But they are one of
the specification editors and work with developing the schemas, and
more.

Obviously keeping track of all that is more aggravation - unless we are
allowing the chairs some discretion - where someone can ask for a
dispensation based on prior attendence - this would save having to track
it explicitly - unless someone objected and asked for a specific check
of minutes / Kavi records.

DW


----- Original Message -----
From: "Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>
To: "'Duane Nickull'" <dnickull@adobe.com>
Cc: <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>; "'James Bryce Clark'"
<jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>; <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: [chairs] TC Process revisions released


> I like these suggestions. Excused absences and more flexible
attendance
> rules would make it easier for people to participate in a TC and earn
voting
> status without forcing them to override conflicts with their work
schedules
> (which, realistically, is the situation the majority of us are in).
>
> =Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:21 AM
> Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark;
> mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [chairs] TC Process revisions released
>
> What scares me is that I travel often enough that I may be forced to
> cancel meetings so I don't loose my voting status.  Since a chair must
> be a voting member, this has an impact on the ability of the TC to get
> the work done.  The SOA RM TC has meetings every two weeks and a face
to
> face every 2 months plus we may have special meetings.  I haven't
missed
> a meeting yet but have historically had to travel with less than 24
> hours notice.
>
> There are two solutions on the table:
>
> 1. To address this, the chairs discretion could be used but someone
> pointed out to me privately yesterday that this could also lead to
> trouble of perceived favoritism.  If this is implemented, it would
have
> to be very deterministic rules governing it.  Example - you have to
> inform the chair in email before the meeting and request an excused
absence.
>
> 2. The idea of making only some meetings voting meetings also has
> merit.  We have a large membership in our group hence a large quorum
so
> not all our meetings are voting meetings.
>
> Here is a question from #2:
> If a quorum is not present, the meeting is a non voting meeting.
Would
> non attendance in a non voting meeting affect status?
>
> 3. A third idea is to revert to a more gentle threshold like having to
> attend more than 2 out of every 4 meetings or even 3 out of 5.
>
>
>
> Duane
>
> -- 
> ***********
> 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
> ***********
>
>
>
>