Subject: RE: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical Committee
Duncan, Will remove the clause that the co-chairs can suspend the rules. My logic or lack thereof was that it allowed the chairs to enable progress IAW their judgment, but if you see it as ceding too much power to the chair then so be it. Regarding the 'sub-bullet', will change 3, 4 and 5 to a. b. c. Regarding your clarification issue with Rule 2, the executive secretary is going to post and/or email the artifacts to the members and was going to leave some flexibility wrt how she wants to do it (via email, attachment to the calendar or whatever). I will modify it to make it at least 7 business days to the Exec secretary and the Exec secretary to disseminate it to the TC at least 5 business days in advance. Regarding your objection to Rule 3; It is appropriate to allow the co-chairs to exercise some judgment wrt approval of agenda items and to let the co-chairs prioritize the agenda items, but you are correct in that we really don’t need a whole week. Will change that to five days. As far as the SC reports to the TC, that is a standing agenda item and is not subject to rule 3. (I have not posted the standing agenda yet because I was OOO since Friday but will get a draft out there for comment) Regarding your other objection to Rule 3, a key role for the co-chairs to manage the day to day business of the committee. Allowing the co-chairs to approve the agenda is a proper thing to do and is a useful tool for managing the day to day business of the committee. I agree that it a motion to modify the agenda is a reasonable thing to do, but I do not think it is necessary for the committee as a whole to approve of the agenda. VR Joe B -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 3:38 PM To: Brule, Joseph M <firstname.lastname@example.org>; 'email@example.com' <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical Committee I have two issues with rule 1. One of them is clarification and one is substantive. Clarification: You have a numbered list for Rule 1 that doesn't read correctly. Are not 3/4/5 sub bullets of 2? My substantive comment is I don't think the co-chairs should be empowered to revoke standing rules. Co-chairs facilitate the work program but have no more power than regular members wrt voting. As stated, this gives them the equivalent of 2/3 members votes. I have an issue of clarification with Rule 2 and maybe an substantive issue depending on answer. The clarification is wrt artifacts What needs to be where 7-days prior to the meeting? I presume both the standard must be available and it needs to be added to agenda, correct? And how long does the secretary have to get it to the members? Getting either (ie the standard itself or the agenda announcement) to the members during the meeting is too late, but requiring secretary to turn it around in zero time is also impractical. One solution might be the email giving the standard and saying to put it on the agenda should be sent to all members at least 7 days prior instead of just to the secretary. I maybe have an substantive issue with rule 3. I have no issue with Standards requiring 7 day notice both of the text and of the placing it on agenda. But other agenda items I think should be possible to be added later, especially informative ones (eg informing TC of something in SC). I'd go as far as to say the first agenda item should always be the approval of the agenda, and people can make motions to change the agenda at that point (as long as it doesn't violate other standing rules such as rule 2). Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical Committee From: "Brule, Joseph M" <email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > Date: Wed, June 14, 2017 1:41 pm To: "'email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> '" <email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> > All, Recall that we had our kickoff on June 7, 2017 and at that time we adopted a standing rule (rule 2) with unanimous consent. It is logical to have a rule (rule 1) regarding the standing rules. I also included a standing rule regarding agenda items (rule 3) Please consider this wording. If there are no objections to the wording, I will ask the Executive Secretary to post rule 2 on the OpenC2 TC homepage. If there are no objections to the wording of rule 1 or rule 3 I will set up a ballot. Thank you and please advise, Very Respectfully Joe Brule ==== Tear line ==== In addition to the rules defined by the OASIS TC Process and Roberts Rule of Order, the OASIS OpenC2 Technical Committee has adopted a set of standing rules to facilitate the execution of the day-to-day business of the Technical committee. Rule One; SUSPENSION OF STANDING RULES FOR THE DURATION OF THE MEETING 1. The rules of OASIS or Roberts Rule of Order cannot be suspended as they are not standing rules and always apply. 2. During the course of a meeting, a standing rule may be suspended for the duration of a meeting. A motion to suspend a standing rule is not debatable and must be called to question immediately. The rule will be suspended if any of the following criteria are met; 3. By a vote of 2/3 majority of the voting members present without prior notice 4. By a simple majority vote of the voting members present with prior notice 5. By a ruling of both co-chairs Rule Two; CONSIDERATION OF ARTIFACTS PRESENTED BY A SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE 1. All artifacts must be provided to the Executive Secretary no later than seven days prior to the meeting of the technical committee. The topic may be added to the agenda upon approval of the co-chairs or by proposal by members of the TC as described in Rule Three of these standing rules. 2. Prior to consideration, the chair will call for objections. 3. Any member present may object. An objection must include a brief reason for the objection. 4. Any other member present may support one or more objections 5. If a threshold of 25% or more of the members present object, then the committee will take it as sufficient cause to send the artifact back to the subcommittee for further deliberation. 6. If the threshold is not met then a motion to consider the artifact may proceed 7. If the artifact is called to question, the voting members present may accept, reject or send the artifact back to the subcommittee for further deliberation. Rule Three; CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEMS FOR COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. All members may propose agenda items to the technical committee by providing a summary of the item to the executive secretary no later than seven days prior to the meeting. 2. All agenda items are subject to the approval of the co-chairs. Joe Brule Engineering (Y2D122) FNX-3, B4A335 410.854.4045 'Numquid et vos vultis formicae! Quid illuc est quia formicae!'
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature