RE: [tm-pubsubj] RE: No Chair!

["Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

Mary

> *Bernard
> > Actually, the question of my resignation is a non-issue,
> > since I've been automatically impeached, sort of.
>
> Oh, Bernard,  I don't think that was the intention.
> I still assumed that you were the chair, since you did not
> officially resign or call for a vote for a new chair.

I understand. Let me be clear that what I mean by "impeachment" here was
purely technical (end of membership), and I never thought there was any
human intention behind it.

> >Should I want to reintegrate the TC now, I would have to
> register as OASISindividual member, reapply for TC participation, be
accepted as a
> >prospective member for three months ... all that by the new chair, of
> >course.
>
> I think that there is a grace period for this kind of transition. If you
> become an individual member, I think that you can remain as chair. Scott
> should be able to clear this up.

Well, I had this grace period allowed by Scott already in July, and did not
take the chance then.
Actually I just filled the application form for individual membership.
Scott, is this too late for a smooth transition ?

> >Clearly if a new chair is not appointed ASAP, the TC is bound
> to disappear.
> >But as Mary and others had pointed out, we have to be honest
> and admit that
> >our work has not gained sufficient support from companies nor enough
> >critical mass.
>
> This is a committee decision and is not up to me or a few others.
> I can post a ballot to this affect -- continue with the
> committee or not, create a new committee, etc.  --  and also we can see
if we have
> volunteers for a chair(s).

I think at this point, if we want the TC to keep on (which is the will of
many members) we should at least review the charter in a way that reflects
the TC current consensus, and have a clear roadmap. If this is possible
under OASIS rules (Scott ?), I think my duty is to remain as chair at least
during this charter review period.

> We are now in the position of nobody with the ability to update
> our website -- so we can't even put out a ballot.
> Scott, can you say how we should proceed?

Well, my fault. I did not figure that termination of a membership would
provoke such a mess ...

> >What I consider the best way now, from a personal viewpoint, is
> >to wrap up the work we've done as is, and bring it as an input to what
is currently
> >ongoing in the W3C Semantic Web activity on similar issues. There is no
> >task force enough on this issue among to keep on tracking under
> >different banners basically the same objective - semantic
interoperability.
>
> Well this is your viewpoint, and I can add it as a choice in the ballot.

I figure the ballot choices should be something like:

1. Wrap up the TC and bring its work as input to some relevant part of W3C
Semantic Web Activity.
(See for example what's going on at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sw-meaning/2003Sep/)

2. Keep the TC going after serious charter revision, and some kind of
provision for support from companies.

3. No need to change anything to current charter and roadmap, keep business
as usual.

My personal choice would be 1, but I would live with 2 also - meaning I
would continue participation and even chair if needed. Clearly if 3 is the
TC choice I would resign as chair.

I hope this clarifies a bit.

Bernard