Re: Initializing the PAC

[Robin Cover <robin@isogen.com>]

On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Terry Allen wrote:

> 	
> Jon wrote:
> >I propose to send the following message to this list on Wednesday
> 24 November with replies due no later than Friday 26 November.
> (Yes, I know that 25 November is Thanksgiving in the U.S., but
> you're being given notice now.  If you are in general agreement
> with the direction this is taking, you can respond now by filing
> the statement below together with a statement that you are
> agreeing in advance to minor changes in language that might be
> made in response to input received regarding this version.)
> 
> I so state.
> 
> Could we have the board's statement that it has authorized
> this committee?  ("chartered" implies a charter document)

I would second that... I looked on the OASIS Web site (yesterday,
maybe) and found no information about the Process Advisory
Committee.  Likewise, when I sent a message to the majordomo
server ('info workprocess') I got a null response.

Perhaps I'm missing an email message in which the charter is
given.

I appreciate all the hard work that Jon is doing to create
process documents for bootstrapping the existing committees
- thanks, Jon!

Among some slight misgivings (and puzzlement) about the
"heavy weight" of these new rules:

1) I wonder whether the language will have the effect of
discouraging participation by virtue of the heavy demands
upon international travel, viz., in

>       (four annual meetings) at locations
>       that may be anywhere in the world and that participation in
>       an OASIS committee will require me to attend most of its
>       meetings.  I certify that I have the means and the interest
>       to attend such meetings and that I intend to do so.

2) I wonder whether committee participants (in the general case)
would feel comfortable declaring their oath of intent and financial
means to do so, when the terms require them to expect even
"more detailed criteria for membership and participation" [than
those articulated] which are not known at the time of declaring
their oath, so that they are "agreeing in advance" to the changes
in language:

>       the board intends to place amendments to the OASIS
>       Bylaws before the voting membership for their approval
>       before the date on which this committee is expected to
>       complete its work; and that upon approval of such
>       amendments, the committee will proceed under more detailed
>       criteria for membership and participation.  I agree to [...]

I'll probably sign something like this if it's necessary to
bootstrap the working process for this committee, but I
can't quite visualize the need for so much language about
disqualifying a potential committee participant under various
criteria.

-rcc