[security-jc] RE: Question on the meaning of JC votes...

["Karl F. Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>]

Rather than calling the votes procedural or coordination, we could
consider them as 1) those that apply only to the JC and 2) those that
are recommendations to the member TCs.

Those votes that are recommendations to the TCs should request their
input, and perhaps also their assent to be bound by the decision.
Obviously this assent would take at least two weeks, or perhaps a month
or so for the TC to consider the issue and agree to abide by the
recommendation. And this type of JC recommendation may not have much
weight unless it is unanimously accepted by all of the member TCs.


</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
+1 978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle Adams [mailto:carlisle.adams@entrust.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:26 PM
To: 'security-jc@lists.oasis-open.org'
Cc: 'karl.best@oasis-open.org'
Subject: Question on the meaning of JC votes...


Hi,
I don't think we resolved this on the call today, so I'll begin a thread
for further discussion.
The SJC will generally have two types of votes:
 - procedural votes (when is the next meeting?  can we approve the
previous minutes?  can all OASIS members join the mail list?);
 - TC coordination votes (common glossary?  activities that need to be
done?  re-use of schema?).
The first type can certainly occur on our conference calls.  The second
type, it was suggested, could take place via e-mail in order for the
chairs/liaisons to get the sense of their TCs prior to voting.  I don't
know if it matters whether or not those votes take place via e-mail, but
they certainly do need some period of time (perhaps 2 weeks or so) to
allow a polling of each of the TCs.
But, the question I raised on the call remains.  What does a SJC
coordination vote mean?  Just to use the one example that was raised,
consider the common glossary idea.  If, after getting the sense of the
TC members, one TC votes "no" to having a common glossary, and all the
other TCs vote "yes", then what is the outcome?  If the SJC has no
authority over its TC members (and technically it doesn't), then the
result is that there is no common glossary across the OASIS security
TCs.  This would mean that SJC votes are meaningless unless there is
100% consensus (which means they are meaningless).  If member TCs will
disregard SJC votes whenever they feel like it, why are they signing up
to be members of the SJC at all?
My understanding is certainly in line with what Hal articulated.  SJC
votes are morally binding, or impose a sort of moral obligation, on the
member TCs.  Nothing in the rules of OASIS can enforce this, but if we
don't impose this on ourselves then I don't see the value of this joint
committee whatsoever.  Just straight information sharing doesn't need
the formalism of a JC.
Karl, can you please offer your thoughts here?  How has this worked for
ebXML (have they had votes?  what have the votes meant to the member
TCs?)?  As a result of the discussion over the last two days, I'm really
struggling to understand the value of the SJC.
Carlisle.