As a member of the TAB, I’m constantly looking at areas in the
TC Process that need improving.
The one observation I have from this discussion is that section
2.15 of the TC Process does not mention any requirement to send a warning to a
I think TC Admin is right to send out such a warning, to give a
TC the chance to keep itself alive should it choose to do so. Therefore I will
raise an issue and it can be discussed at the Board Process Sub Committee.
From: David RR Webber (XML)
Sent: 18 July 2010 17:10
To: Eduardo Gutentag
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Martin
Subject: RE: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
Appreciate the guidance. I do believe that we need some
Yes - we are all spread paper thin - and hence we need to help
If we had an early warning notice mechanism - where the chair was
being sent a remind a month out - this would all have been avoided.
A six month prior notice - the original complaint in which was
resolved - does not count - situations change a lot in six months.
So again we're back to the role of TC admin - are they trying to
close TC's or are they looking to help chairs continue work in progress?
Currently it appears that the former is occurring here.
Notice as a chair and member of TCs I've helped many TCs
re-charter, get new members, publish specifications, and more - so I am proactive
- when notified in a timely fashion that things need addressing.
What I'm objecting to here is about a weeks notice - and much
worse - the "You failed" type messaging to the TCs involved.
None of this is conducive to the TC turning things around and
whether that is the intent or not - it is the outcome currently.
When the TC and chairs are working incredibly hard on their
technical work they don't need administrative trip wiring undermining
that. The whole point is to bring the technical work to completion.
And usually doing the technical work will drive the administrative stuff
too - but not always - depending on key members availability, other project
scheduling and demands and prioritizing. Gaps occur of several months as
we've all seen.
Then Observers are obviously important to the TC. They are
potential source of members, and many frankly are not aware of the subtle
differences, or under other pressures. For example our observers post
valuable comments to the list and chair. The list message bounces of course
- but of course they can post to the dev list OK - that's a bit of
an anomaly. Then we have the case of the second class status of
non-member organization members - when they are doing all the work on the TC!!!
An additional way of counting all this could be to factor in
contributions to the discussions and technical work.
So - yes - we will be appealing this if necessary.
I'm hoping this coming week we can get this all resolved amicably
- but as I said - if this had been raised a month ago - we would not be going
through all this - and that is a big issue here.
-------- Original Message
Subject: Re: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
From: Eduardo Gutentag <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, July 17, 2010 1:11 pm
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
"'Martin Chapman'" <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com>,
I assume you're talking about the CAM TC, although you never mention it by
name; please correct me if I'm wrong.
I have a hard time imagining Mary or anybody else in OASIS Staff in the role of
the wicked witch of the TCAdmin, so I went digging around.
Section 2.5 of the TC Process says explicitly that "The TC Administrator must
close a TC that has completed the deliverables listed in its charter."
The deliverables listed in the CAM TC charter are targeted for 2003. It is now
seven years later. If the deliverables were indeed delivered, and you want/need
to continue the TC, it's time to recharter, don't you think?. The TC process
document explains how to do this. If the deliverables were not delivered, dude,
what have you been doing these past seven years? What kind of TC are we talking
As regards the TC membership, it is below what the TC process defines as
"Minimum Membership" in Section 1, definition m: at least two
organizational members among five voting members. What you currently have is
less than that. I don't see any twenty people in the roster, and no, observers
don't count. Not even non-voting members. Observers are nothing more than
mail-list subscribers. They really really really don't count. Truly. The Minimum
Membership concept is there to ensure a TC has a reasonable minimum of
community or industry support and it is not just the playing ground of one
company or individual.
You should also remember that OASIS is one of the least expensive organizations
of its type, and it operates on an extremely restricted budget with an
extremely small staff, none of whom is trained in CPR. Asking them to basically
resuscitate a TC is quite unrealistic.
As to the role of the OASIS TC admin, it's very simple: it's to ensure that the
TC process is being observed by all. If you believe that the TC admin is
overstepping his/her role, you can appeal; see Section 4.2, Appeals. If you
believe the TC process document should be changed, send email to the Board of
Directors (email@example.com) with a concrete