RE: [chairs] Is it? RE: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

Jamie-

Perhaps we can start a wiki to collect proposals and feedback. A wiki
will definitely cut down on email traffic. 

I'd hate to even suggest it, but perhaps there should even be an
"organization" list (for folks in OASIS organizational issues such as
IPR, Membership Rules, TC Rules, etc) that is open to all OASIS members.

	-Gabe 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org] 
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 12:29 PM
> To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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*.  * * *
> 
>