Re: [EXT] Re: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical Committee

If the rule states that you cant change the agenda during the meeting then I would suggest we remove the rule.

Its not practical and unnecessary. Topics come up naturally that we would want to discuss. Do we really want to stop that?

Other groups have been working at OASIS where agenda is best-case most of the time. Some meetings have a well-defined agenda. Some don’t.

For folks that are involved in many projects and work outside of the OASIS groups, it happens that sometimes the agenda does not receive the full attention that it should before the meeting. But once the meeting starts the content is fluid and people agree that a topic is important then that topic would be discussed in the meeting.

Lets not become overly procedural.

Allan Thomson

CTO

+1-408-331-6646

LookingGlass Cyber Solutions

From: <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "duncan@sfractal.com" <duncan@sfractal.com>
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:01 PM
To: "Brule, Joseph M" <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>, "'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org'" <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical Committee

I think I'm not very good at communicating. My main objection on rule 3 was the agenda (1) being cast in stone 1 week (now 5 days) prior to the meeting and (2) co-chairs have dictatorial power over including agenda items or not (which they still have). I have no problem with agenda well in advance, but I'm uncomfortable with chairs being able to block something from being discussed.

My attempt to correct that was approval of agenda as first order of business on all agenda's (which is a pretty standard thing). I interpret Bret, Allan, and Trey's comments that they objected to the formality of the approving the agenda but not to the concept that first thing on agenda is to see if anything should be added to agenda - but they can speak for themselves if I am misinterpreting.

I recognize in practice our current chairs are reasonable people and wouldn't abuse their power and prevent something important from being discussed. But I have seen chairs abuse power in other bodies in the past so I'm leery of the rule as written - which does not allow for changing the agenda at the meeting even if a majority of the members present want the change. If the 'standing agenda' (ie co-chair can't remove it) always has both 'reports of subcommittees' and 'new business' - then I'm ok (since anything important should be able to be brought up in one of those).

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical Committee
From: "Brule, Joseph M" <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>
Date: Thu, June 15, 2017 12:04 pm
To: "'duncan@sfractal.com'" <duncan@sfractal.com>,
"'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org'" <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>

All,

I think that we can address the comments/ concerns as follows:
I removed the ability of the co-chairs to suspend Rule one
I changed para 3 and 4 to i and ii in rule one
I modified paragraph 1 to reflect that the artifacts must be made available to the TC in advance of the committee meeting.
I changed rule 3 to only require five days.

After the proposed standing rules, I pasted in a draft 'generic' agenda which I believe addresses some of the concerns Duncan identified.

==== tear line for standing rules====

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;
i. By a vote of 2/3 majority of the voting members present without prior
notice
ii. By a simple majority vote of the voting members present with prior notice

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 business 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. If approved as an agenda item, the executive secretary will provide the artifacts to the members of the TC no later than three business days prior to the meeting of the technical committee.
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. For items that are not artifacts as referenced in rule two, all members may propose agenda items to the technical committee by
providing a summary of the item to the executive secretary no later than
five days prior to the meeting.
2. All agenda items are subject to the approval of the co-chairs.

===== tear line 'persistent' agenda ======

* Roll call: (five minutes)

* Approve minutes of previous meeting (1 minute)

* Subcommittee reports: (five minutes each)

* Status/ Resolution of Actions: (variable, but if done correctly, should be single digit minutes each)

* New Business: (Variable but should be less than 10 minutes each)

* New Action item review (five minutes)

* Adjourn

By my arithmetic, this is about 45 minutes which leaves some slop in the agenda if an item becomes contentious. Sub-bullets will be added IAW the topics de jour

===== old email chain

-----Original Message-----
From: Brule, Joseph M
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 4:17 PM
To: 'duncan@sfractal.com' <duncan@sfractal.com>; 'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org' <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
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: duncan@sfractal.com [mailto:duncan@sfractal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Brule, Joseph M <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>; 'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org' <openc2@lists.oasis-open.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" <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil ><mailto:jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil> >
Date: Wed, June 14, 2017 1:41 pm
To: "'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> '" <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org ><mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.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!'

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

openc2 message