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

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

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

Phil wrote;
> There's also a time factor. Assume a TC votes to accept an SJC
> recommendation, and following this vote the membership changes.
> Are new members 'bound' to anything?
>
> And is the TC, new members or not, bound forever? What if the world
> were to change? A TC vote is not a contract after all.

I don't understand this thinking at all. Properly contituted votes of the TC represent a commitment. The TC can have a new vote and reverse itself, but important actions like accepting a specification or submiting it to OASIS are not likely to be reversed. I guess I see the whole premise of working thru OASIS becomes questionable if TCs suddenly start reversing themselves. This is one reason for an emphasis on consensus rather than a simple majority vote -- to promote stable decisions.

> I guess I tend to view the SJC votes more like the MoU MG votes.
> They are intended to promote coordination and cooperation, but
> they are not really binding on the groups being coordinated. The
> MoU MG votes have moral authority only.
>
> And the MoU MGs ability to foster cooperation is its strong suit.
> That power is not as small a deal as it might seem. It also carries
> with it the power to collectively not cooperate with the
> uncooperative.
>
> I believe the same will hold true for the SJC votes. Adherence to
> the dictates of the SJC will depend on the quality of SJC leadership
> and on the perceptions of those the SJC seeks to coordinate.

I agree with this. I also think there is no reason to press this issue in the abstract. On the other hand, I do not want to preclude the possibility of an agreement that all the TCs would consider themselves bound to.

Hal