Agility will be key and while having a good plan for agenda makes good sense and meetings more effective. Things will come up naturally and we will want to allow that to encourage innovation and progress.
LookingGlass Cyber Solutions
From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:03 PM
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "Brule, Joseph M" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Subject: [openc2] Re: [EXT] RE: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical Committee
While I do like a bit of formality, can we please not be to heavy with it? For some things it makes sense, but it does not make sense for everything.
Voting on an agenda? Really? Can we down play this a bit and say we will get the agenda out x hours/days prior to the meeting and then the first thing we do in a meeting is ask if there are any additions that need to be added.
Sent from my Commodore 64
PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
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).
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical Committee
From: "Brule, Joseph M" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, June 14, 2017 1:41 pm
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
Thank you and please advise,
==== 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
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
4. By a simple majority vote of the voting members present with prior notice
5. By a ruling of both co-chairs
CONSIDERATION OF ARTIFACTS PRESENTED BY A SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE COMMITTEE AS A
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
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
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.
'Numquid et vos vultis formicae!
Quid illuc est quia formicae!'
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: