Is the default process correctly described?

[Jon Bosak <bosak@boethius.eng.sun.com>]

Based on Terry's comments, which I'm not going to attempt to reply to
point by point right now (I intend to collate the more important
issues he has raised for later discussion), I think that we should
start not with the proposed process, which was the first thing I
wrote, but with the default process, which I only started to get a
handle on a couple of weeks ago.

My analysis of the default process is at

   http://metalab.unc.edu/bosak/wkproc/doc/defaultp.101

This is just like the original version I posted on 1999.11.01
(defaultp.100) except that I've excised some vacuuous commentary.

I would like everyone to please read this piece (if they haven't
already) and attempt to answer the following questions:

   1. I assert in defaultp.101 that the OASIS Bylaws do
      presently describe a detailed committee process that as a
      Pennsylvania Non-profit Corporation we are legally bound to
      follow.  Am I right?

   2. I further assert in defaultp.101 that the process we are
      bound to follow is the one that I've described.  Is it?

I am quite certain that we cannot properly operate except as specified
in the OASIS Bylaws, and that means that we cannot set about proposing
changes to the process until we completely understand and are agreed
upon an interpretation of those Bylaws as they apply to committees.
If what I've described in defaultp.101 is not our initial state, then
we need to arrive at a common understanding of our initial state
before we can continue.

Please post an answer the two questions above by the close of business
Tuesday, November 9.

Jon