Re: [board-agenda] Proposed Changes to the Member Section Policy

[Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>]

hi patrick,
   Thanks for you thoughtful feedback and comments.

   We discussed where the "power" should be vested for ROP changes and  
decided that, since the ROP is essentially the "constitution" for the  
MS, it should be the MS members, not the Steering Committee.
    We hadn't noticed the words you point out wrt to Steering  
Committee, so i guess we should delete "maintain the ROP" from the  
Steering Committee responsibilities. I'll bring that up when the draft  
is discussed.

You will note that any 3 MS members can propose changes, so that means  
that the Steering Committee can still proposed changes.

cheers,
    jeff

On May 24, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Patrick Gannon wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for all the hard work of the Process Committee and staff who
> carefully considered these changes to the MS Policy.
>
> In your email below you state the proposed actions to include "pending
> asking for and receiving feedback from chairs".  I would agree that  
> the
> Member Section Steering Committee Chair is the appropriate person to  
> provide
> the summary feedback, but that each MS Steering Committee should be  
> sent the
> final draft MS Policy with request that they review and the Chair  
> provide
> feedback.
>
> All of the proposed changes in this revision of the MS Policy appear
> appropriate.  However, in the new section 3.3 Modifications to the  
> Member
> Section RoP is not aligned with the relative duties within a MS.   
> Line 179
> states "Approval of the proposal shall require a Member Section  
> Special
> Majority Vote."
>
> I suggest that this should reference the Steering Committee vote -  
> not a
> MS-wide vote.  So inserting "Steering Committee" before "Special  
> Majority
> Vote" would fix this.
>
> The reason goes to the relative responsibilities.  See lines 203-204  
> in
> Section 3.6 Activities of a Member Section Steering Committee.
>
> "The following are activities of the Member Section Steering  
> Committee:
> 	a) Must maintain a Rules of Procedure (ROP) document for the Member
> Section (as defined in 203 Section 3.2, "Formation of a Member  
> Section")."
>
> Maintaining the ROP would include proposing revisions to that MS's  
> ROP.  In
> the past, it has been the MS StC that has decided and put forward to  
> the
> OASIS Board any MS ROP revisions.
>
> Whereas in section 3.7 Activities of the Member Section Members, the  
> MS
> Members elect the StC and provide feedback to the StC.  They are not
> responsible to maintain (revise) the ROP.
>
> Thus, the new proposed section 3.3 appropriately has a 30-day email
> discussion among the MS Members, giving them the opportunity to  
> provide
> feedback to the StC.  However, it would be in line with the defined
> responsibilities of the StC to have the MS ROP modification Special  
> Majority
> Vote conducted by the Steering Committee.  This will also be easier  
> for the
> MS Admin person to get a quorum vote within the MS StC, than trying  
> to get a
> quorum of votes from the entire ME Qualified Electors.
>
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Patrick Gannon
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:21 AM
> To: board-agenda@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [board-agenda] Proposed Changes to the Member Section Policy
>
> Hi,
>
>  The Process Committee has been working on improving the Member  
> Section
> Policy mostly to clarify some procedures, answer some questions that  
> have
> come up, and to make various processes identical (or at least very  
> similar)
> to the TC Process Policy.
>
> We've reached a point where we think we are done (with this  
> iteration).
>
> The Process Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the board  
> adopt
> these changes pending asking for and receiving feedback from chairs.
>
>  Our plan is to have this on the Agenda for the Napa as an A Item, and
> hopefully vote to approve it. If there are more issues/questions  
> raised than
> the Board feels comfortable dealing with, then we hope to come back  
> at the
> next teleconference.
>
>  Here are the highlights:
>
> 1. Define a better process for how ROPs are created making sure that  
> OASIS
> primaries are in the loop. (Note: there is no required member review/ 
> discuss
> step because in general creation of Member Section is more of an
> initiative/delicate negotiation between a few companies and the  
> board, often
> involving OASIS in effect acquiring another organization.
>
> 2. Define a better process for how ROPs can be modified.
>
> 3. Create the formal staff role of MS Administrator, analogous to TC
> process.
>
> 4. Define an appeals process, analogous to TC process.
>
> 5. Define rules for a Member Section Special Majority vote
>
>
> Please send comments to Mary and myself.
>
> cheers,
> jeff
>
>
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065