RECONSIDERING the MOTION to Request Ballots of the TA Documents

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I was looking at how we could reconsider the motion approved on 2010-10-26
for the purpose of also requesting that the Test Assertion Guidelines be
submitted to a Committee Specification ballot, not a Committee Note ballot
(for which it is ineligible as is).  I was present at the time and the
motion was approved by unanimous consent.

Usually, a motion to reconsider is not permissible when any portion of the
original motion has been carried out.  

Another way to look at this is that the original motion has been entirely
carried out, but the TC Administrator informs us that the CD for the Test
Assertions Guidelines is not eligible for balloting as a Committee Note.
(Note that the motion was to make requests of the TC Administrator.)  That
was determined off-list, but you will notice that the Guidelines were not
one of the documents whose Committee Specification Approval Ballot Request
has been acknowledged by the TC Administrator.

It seems that we can simply make a new motion requesting that the Test
Assertions Guidelines CD be submitted to a Committee Specification ballot.  
 - Dennis

PS: In researching whether reconsideration applied here, I was reminded how
amazing it is that Robert's Rules deals with reconsideration and limits it
in ways that ensure that progress is always made (rather than perpetual
re-hashing).  Once I learned about this, I understood why, in legislatures,
when a motion is assured to pass (or fail), many from the opposing position
would join on the prevailing side, since they were then able to request
reconsideration at a future time (assuming a motion to reconsider would pass
in the light of new information or exigencies).  

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] 
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 10:09
To: 'Jacques Durand'; tag@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [tag] URGENT: deciding whether the Test Assertion Guidelines is
a "specification" or a "note"

I see no problem with going forward with the TA Guidelines Version 1.0 as a
Committee Specification that never goes beyond that.  We had been using the
Committee Specification track all along for Version 1.0 because that was the
only means available for advancing an informative document to a complete,
stable document.  The introduction of a separate OASIS Committee Note
progression wasn't available unto October 15, as I recall.

THE MINUTES ARE IN ERROR.  I see that we did approve request of Committee
Note status for the TA Guidelines in the motion as stated, seconded, and
approved by unanimous consent.

THAT IS MY MISTAKE.  I was so aware that the practice in the past was to
move informative documents to Committee Specification and to stop there,
that I forgot we had specified a different action for TA Guidelines in our
2010-10-26 Call by the time I wrote the minutes later that day.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 18:02
To: tag@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [tag] URGENT: deciding whether the Test Assertion Guidelines is a
"specification" or a "note"

All:

 

Per last meeting we decided  to submit the TA model, markup and Guidelines
for CS ballots (model, markup) and CN ballot (guidelines).

Dennis: I think your minutes did not catch correctly the CN intent for the
Guidelines (reported as a CS intent) - am I correct?

Anyway, the issue with moving the Guidelines to the newly created
non-standard track (as Committee Note), is that - after checking with the
OASIS TC admin -  it would require starting again to square one on the CN
track, meaning yet another public review of 30 days.

So we (myself and our secretary Dennis) are considering keeping the
Guidelines on a "standard" track as the other 2 deliverables, although it
has no normative statements and will NOT be moved beyond the Committee
Specification (CS) status.

The only real difference, is that the IPR status for Specifications  is not
same as for Notes, which by nature do not constrain the TC contributors
IP-wise as much as CS do.  Actually our TAG IPR mode "Royalty-Free on
Limited Terms", provides a clearer IP status and protection to users, for
deliverables produced as CS rather than CN.

So in the short term, the model and markup are not affected: we move
separately the markup and model to CS ballot, as these are the ones to move
further as OASIS standards.

But we need to decide as a TC if we are OK with the Guidelines as a
"Committee Specification" (as we have always stated in the past it would
just be an informational doc without specification status).

For this I plan to schedule a short meeting  Tuesday Nov 9th, 2pmPT. Please
use mailing list to voice your concern if any.

 

Thanks,

Jacques

 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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