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] OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?

One approach:
  • Minimum percentage of approving votes required from the voters who belong to topically-related groups.  Maybe a higher percentage than the 10% or 15% currently in effect, since those voting would have a higher level of interest in the specification at hand.  This could increase the probability that the spec proposal is actually reviewed by people qualified and interested in reviewing it.
  • Some kind of "veto power" by any of the regularly voting members.  A "no" vote from any of the regular broad pool of voters might trigger a higher level of acceptance required by the topically-related votes.
We certainly want to avoid OASIS rubberstamping randomly-generated specifications, akin to what occurred here:
Seraphim Larsen
DITA TC secretary

Seraphim Larsen                       CIG Operations / TPPE
Senior Technical Writer                   Intel Corporation
(480) 552-6504                                 Chandler, AZ

The content of this message is my personal opinion only.
Although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make
here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor
am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.

From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:53 AM
To: Wachob, Gabe; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?

Does anyone else feel this way?


I agree that it may be suboptimal.  Do you have any concrete plans or suggestions for our perusal?  While voting to approve something you haven’t read is a relatively hollow gesture, it has to be balanced against the other end of the spectrum whereby a group of three members could get together, have a FUDfest and create some meaningless specification and get it approved as an OASIS standard.  This lack of scrutiny by all of us weakens the perception and credibility of OASIS as a credible standards development organization.


I would be interested in hearing concrete proposals and am open to considering a new model if others are keen too.



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