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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

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

Subject: RE: [office] Coordination Call Attendance


I'm not concerned so much with the burden.  My greater concern is that we 
do not stray from what minutes are.  Minutes of a meeting record the time 
the meeting started, the attendance, a description of items discussed and 
actions taken, and the time the meeting was adjourned.  It should not 
contain random facts, even useful facts, that were not part of the 
meeting.  If we start recording other information and then approving 
minutes that contain such information, which was never presented in the 
meeting and thus the TC never had the opportunity to discuss, challenge or 
correct the information, then we have a different kind of problem. 

Now I have seen other bodies have a set part of the agenda where they 
review who has voting rights.  For example INCITS V1, the US JTC1/SC34 
shadow committee does this after attendance is taken in each meeting. 
Since the voting membership list was presented in the meeting, it can 
legitimately be recorded in the minutes.

Is there interest in doing something similar, i.e., having a short segment 
at the start of each TC call, where we list which members present have 
voting rights?  This would then trickle into the minutes.


"Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 10/02/2008 
10:11:24 AM:

> Rob,
> That is interesting about recording votes and such.  That was not 
> that figured in my request, even though I did cast a nay vote on the 
> call (and I must remind Michael to identify me in the minutes).
> My interest was in accounting for the voting membership and attendance 
> time, since the current state on the TC page is not helpful with regard 
> knowing what the voting participation was at a prior time.  I have no 
axe to
> grind about this.  I was simply taken aback that it wasn't done already 
> easily available.  (My experience in the matter is quite dated; I had
> thought that this kind of tracking was the usual practice in standards
> development and other membership-based committee efforts.)
> I overlooked Michael's recent response.  OK, I get this is simply not 
> practice, it is considered burdensome, and I will shut up.
>  - Dennis
> PS: With regard to the TC Calendar that Michael suggested, I didn't find
> that workable and it does not appear to be part of the TC's public 
> (being behind the password curtain).  The posted membership on the TC 
> is also difficult to use. I just got through to the TC's roster and now 
> understand what the tool is that has been mentioned.  My my ...

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