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

["Brule, Joseph M" <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>]

All, 

There is nothing to preclude anyone from introducing new business  (look at
the fifth bullet on the "tear line 'persistent' agenda").  Assuming that the
agenda goes relatively smoothly, there is time in the new business and all a
member has to do is make a motion.  

It seems logical to permit the co-chairs to look at the agenda items in
advance and prioritize the business of the TC.   It does not seem logical to
spend the first part of every meeting discussing, prioritizing, approving
then voting on the agenda when we could have a mechanism where some convener
or arbitrator could do an a-priori review and prioritization of the agenda. 

In the context of " Chairs are not there for determining what gets done or
the direction that things go. " :   
I honestly do not know how the standing rules and persistent agenda got
interpreted as a means to stop anyone from working or not permitting
discourse or new items.  If you take a look at the persistent agenda, there
is nearly 60% of time allotted for new business and flexibility.   I suspect
that if I spelled out an item on the persistent agenda for 'walk on items'
and allotted some amount of time for it, then the amount of time allotted
will be a source of objection.  

I put black on white.  Put red on black.  


Joe B


-----Original Message-----
From: Bret Jordan [mailto:Bret_Jordan@symantec.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 6:30 PM
To: Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>; duncan@sfractal.com;
Brule, Joseph M <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>; 'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org'
<openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [openc2] Standing Rules of the OpenC2 Technical
Committee

I agree with Allan a 100%. I also agree with you Duncan. Chairs are meant to
make sure everyone's voice is heard and everyone has equal chance to speak,
complain, or beg. Chairs are not there for determining what gets done or the
direction that things go. That is up to the majority of TC/SC members to
decide.  The main role I see for a chair is to make sure some group/user
does not prevent some other group/user from contributing. 




Chair != person that is going to do the most work.  A successful TC would
have a chair that just coordinates efforts and makes sure everything goes
well.  The bulk of the work would be with Editors and members that choose to
contribute. 




Bret

________________________________

From: openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of
Allan Thomson <athomson@lookingglasscyber.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 3:09:27 PM
To: duncan@sfractal.com; Brule, Joseph M; 'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [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 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/url4allant/> 

CTO

+1-408-331-6646

LookingGlass Cyber Solutions
<https://clicktime.symantec.com/a/1/XPiwGo0yb9hzfoGd6egudKEvsJWOyKTCUqKy9Z9U
fvg=?d=dPQNOpC3U_yECScT14-oDKhExHmmf3s5M9oJVvL76ZrmTCxI-QpndgrXBcgR367LjPvXZ
OMb5yQDwgs2GzHnExpOHsPMPrITIDBjlgYkieT-NM-F7MVd6wLT88AFzTvC8R4OSbzCkGZPRAYo1
Czj64fZ0WzIMMB1RbNiqsbn7RBarQ90GlRtiBRgPp4m6YXJ5rLW-slcBmu6ac8ky23Bq494bF7ys
2JDzM8K9mdYTMt9W9x89wDd0FBaSzm_-O4na1rh-k3qv1pPiyP11Nw_TbKblaDu_EdG6lvlbwBjY
rKSXMhjxRRNY4PyPH4zsYaQIW9kjBwNmsgXR1Kt6G37rAedGk4k66NNGNQKwKD8ksN9LkzAXtwEl
54QUXxeGCeFELDdI562LgPqzeXKhNQ_pOrpiKJ5dgLdi_NYozBjOGUJ7rD7YS73FV0j0rjVVJtvM
X26JjWqguHKL4Dqad83cBy52jiqBhkOTH-S&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lookingglasscyber.com
%2F> 

 

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
<mailto:jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil> >
	Date: Thu, June 15, 2017 12:04 pm
	To: "'duncan@sfractal.com <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com> '"
<duncan@sfractal.com <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com> >,
	"'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
'" <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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 <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com> '
<duncan@sfractal.com <mailto:duncan@sfractal.com> >;
'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> '
<openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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>
[mailto:duncan@sfractal.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 3:38 PM
	To: Brule, Joseph M <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil
<mailto:jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil> >; 'openc2@lists.oasis-open.org
<mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> ' <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org
<mailto: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>  ><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>  <mailto:openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
'" <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto: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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature