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

[Phil Griffin <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

> Hal Lockhart wrote:
> 
> 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.

Hal, I simply meant that one TC vote could be replaced by another. 

Phil

> > 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