Re: Is the default process correctly described?

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

Jon asked:

|    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?

No, because considerable interpretation is required to do the "macro
substitution".  Instead, the Bylaws leave much of the interpretation
required to do that to the reader, and hand off to Robert's.  I think
Jon's interpretation is reasonable and I'm content to accept it, but 
I'm sure others could be imagined.  I make this point only because,
well, I'm like that.

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

More or less.  

| 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.

Whether we are operating legally under Pennsylvania law is a subtly
different question than whether the Bylaws describe our procedure
satisfactorily.  I think we're as legal as matters.

I'm happy to agree on "an" interpretation, in particular, Jon's, once
we clarify a few points.  For example, in Section 7, can the committee
(as well as the Board) set the frequency of meetings?  Jon and I get
different results performing the expansion.

| 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.                                              

I think it fairly describes what would be our default state if we
formally agreed to Jon's interpretation.  I don't think we have any
problem here.


regards, Terry