Re: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?

[Lauren Wood <Lauren.Wood@Sun.COM>]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I see the difficulty 
for small groups doing work that is interesting and important to a small 
audience, but largely irrelevant to others. On the other hand, knowing 
that you have to be able to overcome voting apathy with information on 
why the specification is any good, what is useful about it, etc, forces 
a TC to come up with the FAQ, the end-user summary, the "why you should 
care" blurbs. I wouldn't like to lose that aspect of the current system. 
So if we do go for the domains, then they shouldn't be *too* constrained 
in their membership.

Here's a semi-radical thought - if a TC can't explain why the world 
(outside of a relatively small audience) should care about a spec, then 
maybe the Committee Specification status is the right status to aim for? 
The audience that knows and cares should also know that Committee 
Specification status is a stable status. I'd like to see more 
recognition of the Committee Specification status actually, I see it as 
being akin to the IETF RFC on which much of the internet was built.

Lauren
--

Lauren Wood, Chair, Entity Resolution TC.