Re: [humanmarkup] Please Vote

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Karl,

I see that I was in error. This is my fault and only my fault. I had 
thought that invited experts were allowed to vote under the previous 
rules. There are only two invited experts who were not previously 
OASIS members, and their contributions have been extremely important. 
Those two are Len Bullard and Dr. Sylvia Candelaria deRam.

Members whose OASIS memberships have lapsed recently, and who have 
expressed a willingness and intention of renewing were asked to 
continue with this process on the basis of their past contributions. 
We would not have finished work on the Primary Base Schema without 
their help and effort. To be honest I felt they deserved a vote. I 
myself would have fallen into their situation without the 
intervention of Ranjeeth.

I will do whatever you think is appropriate. The vote was unanimous, 
and I have been devoting myself to this work in the hope that once we 
move this first specification into the public comment period, we will 
attract greater interest and participation.

We can revote if you think this is necessary. I understand now, as I 
said, that this was in error. I did not mean to override or imply 
that I could. The vote could also be treated as a straw poll of those 
who participated in the work. I would be devastated if the work 
itself were invalidated on the basis of my actions.

I apologize for putting us all in this position, and I would ask only 
that you not impose penalties on any but me. I am ready to do what 
you think is best.

With Deepest Apologies,
Rex Brooks

At 6:53 PM -0500 11/4/02, Karl Best wrote:
>Rex:
>
>I'm puzzled by this message. Are you suggesting that you are giving the
>right to vote in the TC to "invited experts"? I'm sorry, but you can't
>do that. Only TC members can vote in the TC, and only OASIS members are
>eligible to become TC members. Goving away this right to vote takes away
>any reason a person may have for joining OASIS.
>
>  > ... For the record, despite the
>  > recent changes in policy that OASIS has made, and whatever they may
>  > decide in relation to our vote, we need to continue with the same
>  > process that was underway during this process.
>
>I'm sorry, Rex, but you don't have the authority to override the OASIS
>Process.
>
>If it is the case that non-TC members were allowed to vote I will not
>accept the TC's submission to the OASIS membership for their approval.
>
>-Karl
>
>
>
>Rex Brooks wrote:
>>  Hi Everyone,
>>
>>  While the subject line says it all, there are a few additional factors I
>>  would like you to understand in the context of this note to encourage
>>  you all to vote if you are eligible. That includes everyone in the TC
>>  and our recently appointed Invited Experts. For the record, despite the
>>  recent changes in policy that OASIS has made, and whatever they may
>>  decide in relation to our vote, we need to continue with the same
>>  process that was underway during this process. So for our Invited
>>  Experts, we need your formal voting messages.
>>
>>  Len, I would prefer to have a separate message even though it sounded as
>>  if you were in favor of approval in your last message. So far only
>>  Sylvia and I have voted and the count stands at 2 in favor and 0 opposed.
>>
>>  There are several items which cannot be carried through until we have a
>>  decision. I can't open up a dialog with OASIS about how they want to
>>  officially deal with our current ensemble of Invited Experts, in which I
>>  want a clear decision about the specification to cite as evidence in
>>  favor of our including all of our Invited Experts for the next year. I
>>  also want to use that deliverable status as evidence for, in effect,
>>  grandfathering our Invited Experts as part of the voting TC membership
>>  on the basis of contributions made to the effort while under the
>>  previous conditions.
>>
>>  Also, I want a decision in hand as I proceed forward with building an
>  > OASIS-compliant set of Word, HTML and PDF versions of the specification.
>>  There are a number of issues which I need to be able document as
>>  requiring policy decisions from them with regard to suggestions I want
>>  to make. Making suggestions without concrete examples is not a practice
>>  I am willing to make. These suggestions concern increasing clarity in
>>  rules regarding namespaces, documentation and improving readability for
>>  the purposes of explaining these specifications.
>>
>>  We also need to request some specific changes to accommodate
>>  specifications such as ours which include foundational specifications
>>  which are not application-specific for determining what constitutes an
>>  independent implementation. This issue directly affects our ability to
>>  gain overall OASIS approval of our specification as a recommended standard.
>>
>>  Lastly, we need to set the agenda for our next meeting and get off to a
>>  good start on the next phase of work, whether it is to continue working
>>  on the Primary Base Schema or moving on to the Secondary Base Schema.
>>
>>  Ciao,
>>  Rex
>
>
>--
>=================================================================
>Karl F. Best
>Vice President, OASIS
>+1 978.667.5115 x206
>karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com