The TRAC reconsidered

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

I'm reconsidering the decision that some of us came to over lunch
in San Jose during the OASIS/CEFACT meeting.  It has occured to
me that the dual advisory committee method we proposed as an
interim solution doesn't map well to where I thought we would be
going in the long run, which seems to be the idea of autonomous
committees, or at least committees whose voting membership (that
is, who's a member and who's not) can be run on autopilot.

The long-term part of this project is driven by the requirement
to put minimum demands on the central authority, in particular
minimum demands for oversight.  This suggests a structure that
operates from the bottom up, not one that is directed from the
top down.  If non-hierarchical direction is a basic structural
feature of the end state, then I don't think it's a good idea to
create an interim solution with a structure designed to operate
over a relatively long time from the top down.

I know that this contradicts the statement I made in San Jose
that the interim process has to be able in theory to function
indefinitely.  I didn't realize the organizational overhead
implied by this position.

Let me review the possible interim solutions and maybe you'll see
what I mean.

   Interim solution 1.

      Leave the existing structure alone until we get a new one
      in place through changes to the bylaws.  This assumes we
      know just when that's going to happen.  Personally, I find
      this level of uncertainty either unacceptable or so close
      to it that I can't tell the difference right now.  But a
      case could be made for it.  So far I think that only one
      person has suggested this alternative, but others may feel
      the same way and just not be saying anything.  If a
      majority is in favor of just leaving the existing structure
      alone as an interim solution, I need to know that.

   Interim solution 2.

      Institute an advisory committee of the board to create and
      maintain technical subcommittees and to forward the reports
      of technical subcommittees (in the form of specifications)
      to the board for its disposition, in particular to propose
      the question of the acceptance of the specification by the
      OASIS membership as an OASIS Technical Resolution.  This
      has been our plan for the last week, but it troubles me
      that this structure of "board => advisory committee =>
      technical subcommittee" does not map without a fair amount
      of reorganization to the desired end state "board => TC".
      So if you figure that we are going to have a complete
      solution mapped out by Paris (if not well before), then
      reorganizing everyone only to reorganize them again a few
      months later is not a pleasant thought.  When I also
      consider the fact that our existing committees map very
      nicely to the probable end state, then I feel reluctant to
      disturb them structurally.

   Interim solution 3.

      Fix the existing committee structure.  This could be done
      through formal appointment of new committees and
      recertification of existing committees by formal resolution
      and appointment of voting members.

      Observations about solution 3:

      - This solution avoids structural transitions.  If we
        keep existing committees at their present organizational
        level, then our long-term solution can be accomplished
        largely by adding a membership autopilot to the bylaws
        so that voting membership in the TCs and their
        subcommittees does not have to be overseen by any
        creating body (except in rare cases, by appeal).

      - If, as assumed in Solution 2, the board has the power
        to create an advisory committee that has the power to
        create technical subcommittees that are themselves
        empowered to draft reports back up the chain (which I
        think it does), then the board has the power to appoint
        those committees directly, because it would be absurd to
        say of any committee that it could create subsidiary
        entities more powerful than itself.

      - I think that specifications developed by committees
        that are intended for submission to the OASIS membership
        by the board can be considered advisory reports to the
        board.  So in the case of our current technical
        committees, the task of the board is not to create them
        but to put their creation on record (recertify them) and
        determine their voting membership.

      - Properly appointed committees would apparently
	conflict with the bylaws only in the matter of their
	names, which (given our continuing diligence in solving
	this problem) is not something I think we need to worry
	about while we're putting a long-term solution in place.

      - The problem of providing a quorum remains a difficult
        one, but it is invariant under the choice between
        solutions 2 and 3.

I'd like us to seriously consider interim solution 3 before committing
to the multiple top-level advisory committees of interim solution 2.

With the temporary exception of their names, I think that our existing
TCs would only need to do the following to become completely compliant
with our implied process:

   1. Get formally appointed by the board; this means a
      charter (including deliverables, schedule, etc.) and a set
      of voting members appointed by name in a written resolution
      formally approved by the board.

   2. Start using Robert's at the committee level, at least in
      theory.  In practice this means (a) using a majority vote
      as the mechanism for deciding substantive questions and (b)
      using the rest of the process only when someone thinks it's
      necessary to do so; that is, to make sure that it's there
      when it's needed and that everyone knows that.

When we briefly poked our heads down this path before (about 10 days
ago), I suggested the following procedure, which I now think is a bad
one, for blessing existing committees in a way that meets quorum
requirements:

   Ask the chair of each committee to provide a paragraph
   describing the goal of the committee (this should already be
   on file somewhere) together with a list of what he or she
   considers to be its actual current membership.  "Actual
   membership" means the people who are known to be making
   material contributions to the work of the committee and who
   habitually vote when a question is put to them; otherwise the
   committees will be unable to achieve a quorum.  Submit the
   goal and current membership to the board for approval as the
   committee charter.  If the chair is unable to form a list as
   described, treat it as a new committee according to the
   procedure below.

Now I think that it would be better to use self-nomination rather than
putting chairs on the spot by asking them who the voting members
should be.  By way of demonstration, I've put a revised proposal for
such a process in an accompanying message under the subject line
"Possible interim process fix."

Please comment after you've had a chance to look at the other message.
In particular, please attempt to answer the following questions:

1. Are there other viable solutions besides the three that
   I've listed above?

2. Which solution do you favor at this point?

Since I'm leaving for four days beginning December 1 and may not
be able to establish mail contact again until December 4, it
would be good to get quick answers to these questions from the
people on this list who have signed up to participate as voting
members of the PAC.

Jon