Re: [election-services] Election Systems and Standards Paper

Regards,

Mary

On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:27 PM, John Borras wrote:

Mary

I must step in and protect David on this. He is only following the lead I have already set. We have already submitted two papers to the NIST workshop along these lines and without any of the features you have said. Drafts of both were submitted to the TC for comment, so you presumably you would have seen them then, and getting no kick-back from TC members I submitted the first one and David then followed up with my approval for the second one. We didn't hold a formal ballot to approve them as I didn't see the need for that. So if knuckles need to be rapped here are mine.

Our papers have not yet been selected by NIST for the workshop so they may not see the light of day. If they do then perhaps we would have the opportunity to correct them according to your directions, Certainly any presentations that we do of then at the workshop, and we have lined up Laurent to do the major talk, then we will follow the party line.

So we need to go into damage limitation mode on those papers and I'll talk further with David about these two latest drafts.

Regards
John

From: Mary McRae [mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: 26 August 2009 19:14
To: David RR Webber
Cc: Joseph Lorenzo Hall; eml; Laurent Liscia
Subject: Re: [election-services] Election Systems and Standards Paper - NIST workshop

Hi David,

Actually, the email archive will show you as the sender and not the TC; the concern is that if you are actually giving a presentation on behalf of the TC or submitting a white paper on behalf of the TC, it must first be approved by the TC and must be properly attributed.

Regards,

Mary

On Aug 26, 2009, at 1:56 PM, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:

Mary,

To be clear - these are draft materials ONLY - not formally approved.

A committee is permitted to distinguish work as such - and obviously presenters need to make clear this is not formally approved work - just work produced by members of the TC.

For example this email itself is not formally approved by the TC - but I'm allowed to post it here - and the archives will show it as eminating from the OASIS TC as the source.

We just need to be clear on when something is formally approved work product - and the document repository has that clearly distinguished.

Similarly if Laurent submits a presentation - that has not been formally approved by a TC either.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [election-services] Election Systems and Standards Paper -
NIST workshop
From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall@berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, August 26, 2009 1:44 pm
To: Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Cc: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>, eml
<election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>, CAM OASIS TC
<cam@lists.oasis-open.org>, Laurent Liscia
<laurent.liscia@oasis-open.org>

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Mary McRae<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org> wrote:
> If this is to be submitted on behalf of the TC and identified as work of the
> TC, please make sure that the TC has voted to approve the document as such.

Yes, this concerns me for any submission purporting to come from the
TC. I don't think any of us have had adequate time to look either of
the submissions over. best, Joe

--
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
ACCURATE Postdoctoral Research Associate
UC Berkeley School of Information
Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy
http://josephhall.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

election-services message