Re: Charter

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

> 3. TOPICMAPS.ORG  (I would like this one best, except that it takes
> up so
>                    much room in proportional fonts.  A silly reason.)

I like this best and I vote for it. Anyone who really cares will format
it in small caps anyhow (as they should be doing for acronyms as a
matter of course).

> Yeah, maybe we should hang onto the "XTM Specification" moniker.
> Anybody have strong feelings about this?

It's got that Gen X ring to it. I would then separate the name of the
spec ("XTM" or "XTM specification") from the name of the the authoring
organization. The first mention of the XML spec could be something
like:

    the XTM specification ([acronym expansion here]), authored by
    TOPICMAPS.ORG. The authorized version of the XTM specification
    is located at [URL here].

Further mentions can be "XTM specification" or even "XTM". ("In XTM, a
topic is a windowless monad, a tiny chunk of weltanschauung....")
 
> > 2.3 "license which limits" to "license that limits"
> 
> OK. This is why we love you, Sam.  You're one of those people who
> knows the difference.

Some people say obsessive, but we prefer "meticulous"...

> Query: Can the AG ever, in some extra-ordinary circumstance, ever 
> > over-ride a privilege or emolument granted by the Host
> organization?
> > Cf.
> > Section 3.1.
> 
> I don't see how.  A contract's a contract.  The AG delegates to the
> Host Organization the authority to make sponsorship contracts, and
> the
> Host Organization therefore is empowered to commit the full faith and
> credit of the AG for that purpose, period.  We could insist that the
> AG review all Sponsorship contracts, but I think that's (a) not
> necessary, (b) a waste of valuable AG time, and (c) insulting to the
> Host Organization.  I trust that IDEAlliance is endowed with good
> sense.

On reflection, you're quite right and this is where I came down too.
The remedy for a gross abuse of sponsorship powers is changing the
host, which is provided for.

> 
> I guess it is, but this is an issue that should really be addressed
> in
> the charter.  This strikes me as a Co-chairs responsibility, or the
> responsibility of the nominee of the Co-chairs.  Does anybody have
> strong feelings about that or about another method?

The other way would be for the person who called for the vote to do the
gathering. I prefer to have a Chair do this. Heck, give them something
to do ;-)

> > 3.5.2 How do we bootstrap the first set of PMs?
> 
> We're going under the assumption that they are the founders -- the
> people who showed up at the organizational meetings in Alexandria and
> San Jose.

Good. I just wanted this stated. Does it need to be stated in the
charter? Do the founding members sign things, like the Declaration of
Independence or something?

> > Is it OK if technology PMs are a majority in the first set?
> 
> If that's the way it is, then that's the way it is.  I don't see
> how we can do anything about that.

Then is it the the case that content PMs must be immediately recruited
(by whom) to redress the balance? I think this is a strong selling
point for my company, the balance of PMs, and so I want to preserve it.

The alternative would be to poll the founders to see what the balance
is now. Perhaps this is a non-issue.

S.

=====
<? "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations ?>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com