RE: [obix] RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...

["Mary McRae" <marypmcrae@gmail.com>]

Thanks Toby,

  We should be all set to start the ballot on Monday, 24 June. According to the
current Kavi roster, the qualified members will be:

IBM
Echelon
Tridium
Trane
LonMark
Hirsch Electronics
UNC
Paul Erlich
Anto Budiardjo
Kenneth Wacks  

  Thanks!

Mary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) 
> [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: tc-admin@oasis-open.org
> Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com; 
> oBIX@lists.oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark; 
> mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [obix] RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> 
> Excuse me.
> 
> I got confused by the terms [again]
> 
>  What we opted for was RF On Limited
> 
> Please initiate the Transfer Approval process.
> 
> I will not explain what twisted my mind around, because it 
> would only lead others astray.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) 
> [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:08 AM
> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark
> Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com; 
> oBIX@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [obix] RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> 
> Good - then under the TC Process, and using only voting 
> members, the TC, with a quorum of voting members, and with no 
> abstentions or dissensions, has approved a transition of the 
> IP of the oBIX TC to RF under RAND on Tuesday May 16 and is 
> submitting a Transition Request to operate under the RF under RAND. 
> 
> Please initiate an OASIS IP Transition Approval ballot for oBIX.
> 
> Toby Considine
> oBIX Co-Chair
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:40 AM
> To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office); 'James 
> Bryce Clark'; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com
> Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> 
> Hi Toby,
> 
>   Only Voting members count towards quorum - it sounds like 
> there might be something wrong with oBIX's Kavi setup. 
> Thankfully Kavi doesn't make the rules - the TC process does.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mary 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) 
> > [mailto:Toby.Considine@unc.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:26 AM
> > To: James Bryce Clark; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com
> > Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> > 
> > While most of the voting members were in attendance, we did 
> nit have a
> 
> > quorum of the members (which is what KAVI wants).
> > 
> > This leaves a process question. Everyone has agreed in numerous 
> > meetings (but without roll called). The primary contributor has not 
> > only declared himself in violent agreement, but has put up an 
> > implementation on SourceForge...
> > 
> > So does that mean I now must create a sense of committee vote? It 
> > seems odd to vote based on a quorum of members that has no 
> > relationship to the voting members...100% of the voting members is 
> > still not a quorum by KAVI standards...
> > 
> > tc
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:58 PM
> > To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office); 
> > mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > Cc: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; paul@ehrlich.com
> > Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> > 
> >      Let me toss in a few comments, inserted below.  
> > Apologies to Toby:
> > We
> > obviously aren't doing a good enough job of clearly 
> conveying what's 
> > in the
> > IPR transition policy and its FAQ.   (URIs both cited below.)
> >      It seems like you *may* already HAVE completed a Transition 
> > Request
> > 
> > Ballot, but I have to rely on Toby to reach and Mary to 
> confirm that 
> > conclusion.   See below.
> >      Regards  Jamie
> > 
> > At 09:14 AM 5/23/2006, Considine, Toby \(Facilities Technology
> > Office\)
> > wrote:
> > >OK, I will put the roll of the last meeting up tonight (it was a
> > face2face
> > >at a conference and my notes are at home) I will then launch a 
> > >Transition Request Ballot to be completed by the
> > end
> > >of the week (a lot of our members are traveling constantly). 
> > Does this
> > >need any special format or wording?  We will then submit a
> > Transition
> > >Request to Mary and wait for things to cook...
> > 
> >      I was at that F2F meeting last week.  I did not count 
> heads, and 
> > walked in after it started, but I *thought* it was a quorate
> > meeting.   Here is how I reached that facial-level guess.  (1) There
> > were a
> > lot of people there.  (2) Toby knows who's really a member, and may 
> > already have been able to calculate the then-current number 
> of voting 
> > members, taking into account the deadwood, even if the 
> roster had not 
> > yet been updated to reflect that.
> > (3) For example if there really were 9 voting members as of 
> that date,
> 
> > quorum would be 5, and if 5 people showed up at a duly 
> called meeting,
> 
> > only "a majority of the votes cast ...as per regular TC voting 
> > procedure" would be needed for a Transition Request Ballot, 
> i.,e., a 
> > simple majority, so in my example, at least 3 of the 5 
> voting yes by a
> 
> > voice vote at the meeting.
> >      If Toby wants help cleaning up his roster on the database to 
> > reflect the current correct membership, I would be happy to provide 
> > it, because I am his TC staff contact.
> > Let me know.
> >      I respectfully suggest that, if he advises us that the actual 
> > numbers for quorum did pan out, then the Transition Request 
> Ballot HAS
> 
> > occurred,
> > 
> > and all Mary may need now is confirmation.  That is, a note 
> from Toby,
> 
> > cc'd to the TC list, confirming that a majority voted formally to 
> > approve the
> > 
> > mode transition at the duly called meeting.  And then, Mayr 
> can start 
> > the second-stage ballot, and yes, as usual, he should 
> follow up with 
> > posted minutes.
> >      However, please note:  you will need to be absolutely 
> certain in 
> > the notice & minutes *which* OASIS policy IPR Mode was 
> selected.  I do
> 
> > not want to put words in the TC's mouth.
> > What is "most restrictive" depends on whether you're looking at it 
> > from the licensor or licensee side.  The mode that Toby and I 
> > discussed *prior* to the meeting as creating the strongest license 
> > obligation, and thus leaving less freedom to the parties 
> obligated to 
> > issue license, was "RF on Limited Terms".
> > 
> > >Special question, if all votes are in in a week, do we 
> still need to
> > wait
> > >30 days?
> > >tc
> > >
> > >>From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com]
> > >>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:41 AM
> > >>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> > >>Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; 
> patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; Paul 
> > >>Ehrlich; James Bryce Clark
> > >>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> > >>
> > >>Hi Toby,
> > >>
> > >>   Sorry for any confusion I've caused! Here's a link to
> > the actual
> > >>Transition Policy and FAQs - maybe that will help a bit.
> > >>http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_transition_policy.php
> > >>http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/transition_faq.php
> > >>
> > >>Here's sections 3 and 5 from the Transition section (3) of
> > the policy:
> > >>
> > >>3. Once a TC has reached the 50% threshold, it may conduct
> > a vote to
> > >>submit a Transition Request to operate under the new IPR
> > Policy. The
> > >>Transition Request must specify one of the IPR Modes under
> > the new IPR
> > 
> > >>Policy as the one under which the TC wishes to operate, 
> and must be 
> > >>approved by a majority of the votes cast by the TC Voting
> > Members (as
> > per
> > >>regular TC voting procedure) before it can be sent to the TC
> > Administrator.
> > >>
> > >>5. Each Transition Approval Ballot must be preceded by a 
> Transition 
> > >>Request Ballot. There is no limit (other than the time
> > limit specified
> > 
> > >>below in 3.10) to the number of Transition Request and Transition 
> > >>Approval Ballots that a TC may conduct until a Transition Approval
> > Ballot
> > >>succeeds.
> > >>
> > >>So what I'm after is evidence of Item 3 above, before I can
> > start item
> > 5
> > >>above. For each meeting held, someone should be taking 
> minutes, and
> > those
> > >>minutes should be posted to the OASIS site, either as a 
> document, as
> > the
> > >>text of an email message, or in the calendar minutes. 
> > That's the link
> > I'm
> > >>looking for. But you also mention that the TC tends not to achieve
> > quorum
> > >>in meetings, which calls into question whether or not a 
> majority of
> > the
> > >>TC Voting Members have actually agreed.
> > >>In looking at the TC Roster, I see a total of 15 voting 
> members. But
> > when
> > >>I look at the attendance records, some of these 
> individuals haven't 
> > >>apparently attended a meeting since 2004 which indicates that they
> > should
> > >>no longer hold voting privileges and be switched to "member." You
> > don't
> > >>want to base your quorum on people that should no longer be
> > considered
> > 
> > >>voting members so I think a roster clean-up is in order 
> and should 
> > >>probably be the first task undertaken. The easiest way to 
> do this is
> > to
> > >>look at the minutes for the last 3 meetings and see who
> > attended. If
> > >>someone's name appears twice, they're voting. If their name only
> > appears
> > >>once in either meeting #1 or meeting #3 they're demoted to
> > member. If
> > >>they attended meeting #2, you'll need to go back one more 
> to see if
> > they
> > >>attended that meeting. If yes, they retain voting rights, if no,
> > they're
> > >>demoted to member.
> > >>Mary
> > >>
> > >>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> > >>>No, not at all.
> > >>>  The Committee has had full and complete running
> > agreement over a
> > >>>number of months. This has included phone calls and meetings at
> > which
> > >>> OASIS staff were present, and outlined the IP states. Two
> > weeks ago
> > the
> > >>> process was described in San Francisco, and it included clear
> > direction
> > >>> that the vote could only be run by OASIS staff. Last week
> > Jamie sat
> > in
> > >>> on on our face-to-face in which our intention to move the
> > the least
> > >>>restrictive IP  policy available was confirmed again. I
> > asked Jamie
> > >>>directly "Good - we are all in agreement; how do we make
> > the change
> > >>>official" He indicated that speaking to him would start the ball 
> > >>>rolling. and (I thought) that we would start last week.
> > >>>This week I reminded him, and he suggest I talk to you. 
> See below.
> > >>>Because you requested an artifact, or minutes pointing the
> > decision,
> > I
> > >>>then asked you how you would like the vote done (as 
> clear repeated 
> > >>>statements of intent and multiple
> > conversations/indications from the
> > >>>chairs are not enough. I asked because I wanted the
> > "artifact" to be
> > of
> > >>>a form to meet *your* stated need.
> > >>>You have now, apparently, taken this as an indication that no 
> > >>>conversation has been had yet. I can see why not so many
> > TCs have yet
> > 
> > >>>converted...
> > >>>Let me summarize:
> > >>>- The TC has had multiple conversations on IP, many with
> > OASIS staff
> > present
> > >>>- It is the clear intent of the TC to convert before the 
> document 
> > >>>currently being prepared for Public Review becomes a standard.
> > >>>- We have not voted only because OASIS has indicated that
> > only OASIS
> > may
> > >>>run an IP conversion vote.
> > >>>- We are waiting for clear direction on how to get the conversion
> > begun
> > >>>ASAP.
> > >>>thanks  tc
> > >>>
> > >>>>From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com]
> > >>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:53 AM
> > >>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> > >>>>Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark
> > >>>>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Hi Toby, So are you saying that the TC hasn't yet voted? I would
> > then
> > >>>>open up a discussion on the TC email list to see what
> > everyone feels
> > 
> > >>>>they can agree to; once you have consensus via email you
> > can start a
> > 
> > >>>>Kavi ballot for that particular mode.  Mary
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> > >>>>>As we rarely get an actual quorum at a meeting, all of 
> our votes
> > are
> > >>>>>in Kavi.
> > >>>>>Does the vote need to be of the form "3 Modes, pick one" 
> > or can it
> > be
> > >>>>>of the form "Shall we change to Free RAND, Y/N"?  tc
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com]
> > >>>>>>Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:42 PM
> > >>>>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> > >>>>>>Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
> > >>>>>>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Hi Toby,
> > >>>>>>   In order to begin the process the TC first holds a vote
> > regarding
> > >>>>>> the specific mode they wish to adopt. The Transition
> > Request must
> > 
> > >>>>>> specify one of the IPR Modes under the new IPR Policy
> > as the one
> > >>>>>> under which the TC wishes to operate, and must be
> > approved by a
> > >>>>>> majority of the votes cast by the TC Voting Members (as per
> > regular
> > >>>>>> TC voting procedure) before it can be sent to the TC
> > Administrator.
> > >>>>>>Please send me a link to the meeting minutes where 
> the vote is 
> > >>>>>>recorded so I can begin the 30-day counter and determine the
> > actual
> > >>>>>>voting representatives.
> > >>>>>>Thanks, and it was great to finally get to meet you in SF!!
> > >>>>>>All the best,
> > >>>>>>Mary
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>Mary, oBIX would like to launch a conversion vote on 
> IP to the
> > least
> > >>>>>>>restrictive variety, which, if I am not mistaken is
> > the RF-RAND
> > >>>>>>>Can you please assist...
> > >>>>>>>tc
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
> > >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:40 PM
> > >>>>>>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> > >>>>>>>>Cc: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: oBIX IP vote...
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>     Toby:  Sort of, yes.  Could you send a pointer for the 
> > >>>>>>>> statement, message or minutes that say "we voted to start a
> > ballot
> > >>>>>>>> to transition to RF on Limited" to Mary McRae
> > (copied here) &
> > >>>>>>>> I?  She will launch ballot but we need an artifact 
> to do it 
> > >>>>>>>> with.  Apologies if I have missed one.
> > >>>>>>>>    Delighted to see your team last week, and the strong
> > industry
> > >>>>>>>> opportunities there.  More to follow up on once
> > we're both back
> > 
> > >>>>>>>> home.  Regards  Jamie
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>At 11:42 AM 5/22/2006, Considine, Toby \(Facilities 
> Technology
> > >>>>>>>>Office\) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>My troops are getting restless - we-d like to get 
> this out of
> > the
> > >>>>>>>>>way...
> > >>>>>>>>>Are you waiting on me?
> > >>>>>>>>>tc
> > 
>