OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

obix message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


Correction: Monday 26 June. 

Mary 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:12 AM
> To: 'Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)'; 
> '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...
> 
> 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
> > > 
> > 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]