Re: Is the default process correctly described?

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

Eduardo wrote:
| first of all, considering the time it took me to read in detail all the
| material you sent, I shudder at the thought of the time you have spent
| on this. Like others, I thank you for the effort, and for the results.

seconded!

| >    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?
| 
| Yes, in spite of Terry's comments, because the question is whether we are
| legally bound to follow the described process, and Terry's answer is that the
| process is described through "macro expansion" rather than explicitly and, it
| would seem, we're therefore not bound to follow it. Since I can't follow
| Terry's logic (inasmuch as even explicitely described processes can be
| open to various interpretations), I don't agree with him.

My point is not that we're not legally bound to follow the
default process, but that it's not clearly described, inasmuch
as the macro expansion alone is insufficient.  But I'm also
registering this point only because Jon asked, not because I
think it matters to this discussion.

| > 
| You say, in
| changes.100, "We customarily don't put "advisory" in the names of technical
| committees, and I think that practice over the last several years indicates
| that we don't want to." That's very thin ice. It could be argued that it
| indicates ignorance of the bylaws rather than active antipathy. 

I'm sure it does.

| b) the second modification proposed is to replace the default rules for
| appointment. I do agree that a change of this magnitude would require a change
| of the bylaws. I am sure we will have a detailed discussion of the proposed
| new rules, but I would like to state up-front that I am  uncomfortable with
| where the "Process Outline" is going as regards TC voting, viz. that what is
| counted is the votes of individuals rather than organizations. This is, in my
| view, a slippery slope that can lead to situations where even a small company,
| not to mention a large one, can dominate by the sheer number of its people 
| participating in a TC.

Yet another reason I want to get clear on what our goals are and
what the vision of the overall process is.  Thousands of committees?
Industry coordination congresses?  How does it all fit together?

| g) I agree with Tommie that the committee process should be well enough 
| documented. Of course, "well enough" is ambiguous enough. So I would
| propose that either the macro expansions be incorporated into the bylaws,
| or that a separate document, referenced in the bylaws, be produced.

Yes, I think the Bylaws are pretty clear for the Board; we need only
a similarly detailed description for committees.

| 2) Regarding notifications

Yes.

| 3) The words "private" and "public" are rather ambiguous, ...

Yes.

regards, Terry