chairs message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?
- From: "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>
- To: <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:28:05 -0700
An issue about the
way OASIS holds organizational votes to move TC drafts to OASIS specifications
has been gnawing on me for quite a while.
Under the current
rules, 15% of organizational members have to vote yes on a specification.
Currently, according to my rough research, this is 15% of 342 voting
organizations or 52 positive votes required *minimum*.
Now, OASIS TCs do
work in a number of very specialized areas yet votes are expected by the general
organizational membership. An example is the recent request to vote on the CAP
1.1 standard. I have no reason to believe that CAP is not a fine proposal
and worthy of approval, and I personally think it sounds valuable. However, I
also have no way of knowing if there aren't serious problems with it. I am not a
domain expert, and I doubt there are 52 organizations in OASIS that are.
Having been involved
in LegalXML in the very early days, I can only imagine this issue about
competence and interest in a specialized area could be even more acute for other
topical areas.
It
appears that the only way specifications like CAP can emerge as an OASIS
specification is for parties to approve the spec who have no domain expertise
and no business justification to invest time in reviewing the
specification. An OASIS specification vote then becomes largely a
matter of rubberstamping the TC's output, thus undercutting the value of the
"OASIS Specification" stamp of approval. Additionally, as a TC co-chair, I'm concerned
that getting approval for a specification at the OASIS level is purely a
political "vote for my spec PLEASE" effort which is a waste of time for the TC
chair and a meaningless gesture for the organizational voters (a role I also
play for Visa).
Does anyone else
feel this way?
It would seem more
rational to have some sort of process that requires review and
positive acceptance by some subset of the membership (e.g. broken down by
topical interest areas, etc) while retaining the right for *all* organizational
members to object as they do now.
Thoughts?
-Gabe
__________________________________________________
gwachob@visa.com
Chief Systems Architect
Innovation Group
Visa International
Phone: +1.650.432.3696 Fax:
+1.650.554.6817
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]