Re: [chairs] Is it? RE: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting isSomewhat Absurd?

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I have to agree with David, even though I would that it were otherwise, Jamie,

Having just been through this particular exercise again, I noted that 
this time, due to the increase in the total number of member 
companies, the difficulty in getting 15% to simply vote is becoming 
as much or more work than promoting an up or down position on the 
issue. I do disagree modestly with David's attribution of the 
aversion to email overload but only to the extent that discussion, 
because one is engaging in making a point, requires quite a bit more 
thought and time, and for me, it is the time involved that gets a bit 
onerous. Now part of that is email overload, to be sure, but simply 
reading through material and thinking about it requires a bit more 
commitment than casual email over a particular hobby horse level 
issue. And when an issue gets complex and there are alternate methods 
or alternate methodologies involved, it really does eat up a major 
chunk of time just deciding, let alone writing it up.

Answer: just stay with what is working, even it is slightly suboptimal.

Ciao,
Rex

At 12:11 PM -0400 10/1/05, David Webber \(XML\) wrote:
>Jamie,
>
>Unfortunately there are only 25 people on that "members discuss" list - and
>most are not actually just run of the mill members.
>
>If you really want to make discussion happen you should have a full member
>list with everyone automatically on it.
>
>However - I suspect the real story is that people are extremely list-averse
>because of email overload.
>
>Hence - whether or not the Ubermensche like it or not - this remains the
>best forum for informed discussion
>within OASIS itself - and for coordination through to the full membership.
>
>Just stating the obvious.
>
>DW
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Bryce Clark" <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
>To: <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 3:28 PM
>Subject: [chairs] Is it? RE: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting is
>Somewhat Absurd?
>
>
>>       This is an interesting thread.  It might be more accessible to
>members
>>  -- and also better would serve our hope to avoid long threads on this
>>  mandated list -- if it were moved to the general membership discussion
>list
>>  at oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org.
>>       We do want to keep traffic on this particular list low-overhead,
>where
>>  possible, because the only way off this list is to stop being a TC chair.
>>       On the merits, I do have some thoughts, but will put them over in the
>>  anticipated oasis-member-discuss thread.
>>      Regards  Jamie
>>
>>  ~   James Bryce Clark
>>  ~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS
>>  ~   jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
>>
>>  At 09:48 AM 9/29/2005, Philpott, Robert wrote:
>>  >+1.  Its not easy for even moderate-sized TCs to avoid having to send out
>>  >the plea for votes. * * *
>>  >
>>  >>From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
>>  >>Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 12:28 PM
>>  >>To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>>  >>Subject: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?
>>  >>
>>  >>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*.  * * *
>>
>>


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309