RE: [rights] Clarification...

[Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@entrust.com>]

Title: RE: [rights] Clarification...

Hi,

----------
From:   DeMartini, Thomas[SMTP:Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM]
Sent:   Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:42 PM
To:     'Carlisle Adams'; Gandee, Brad; 'hal.lockhart@entegrity.com'; Reddy, Hari
Cc:     'rights@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject:        RE: [rights] Clarification...

I completely agree with Hari's earlier point that we cannot make assumptions about what the TC voted on other than what was presented at the meeting.  "Clarifying comments" after the fact should not be read to clarify what the TC voted on; they only confuse the issue.  The TC voted on what the TC voted on.

"The TC voted on what the TC voted on."  True.  And what the TC voted on was to become a member of a body whose explicitly-stated goal was to coordinate the activities of its members.

That issue asside, perhaps the following quote will put the question of "what is a JC" to rest:
 
"A TC shall have no obligation to abide by any decision arrived at in a JC to which it contributes membership. The business of a JC to which a TC contributes membership shall be imparted to the TC through reports from the chair of its liaison subcommittee*. Such reports shall have the same force and shall be made, received, and acted upon in the same manner as reports from any other subcommittee of the TC."

-- http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml#sec1o

 
This precisely aligns with what I said in my original e-mail on this topic:

"I'm not at all suggesting that this control is in any way dictatorial; TCs are somewhat autonomous and can set and follow their own charters in whatever way suits their members".

But the JC cannot coordinate anything if its members just do whatever they want.  This is not coordination.

Carlisle.