RE: Suggested language for CS 6

["Karl Best" <kfbest@earthlink.net>]

> If a proposed specification has received negative votes amounting
> to 10 percent or more of the voting membership of OASIS, it shall
> not become an OASIS standard.  This shall not prevent the same or
> similar specification from being submitted again for a vote of the
> membership.
>
>    [Question: do we want to build in a delay here to prevent TCs
>    from banging on the membership every four months until they
>    find a window of approval or inattention?  One is tempted to
>    say that the presidential candidacy of Harold Stassen over a
>    period of something like 50 years never hurt anything, but the
>    process we're describing here is not an approval process, the
>    intertia of which would prevent any danger, but a disapproval
>    process in which fatigue could very easily allow the passage of
>    a bad specification if its proponents were persistent enough.]

Perhaps we require that the TC solicit and answer objections from the
organizations who voted in the negative, then resubmit. This would be
essentially be a six or nine month delay. We're now into the next quarter;
if comments can be gathered and answered within 53 days then it can get on
the next quarter's ballot, then wait another quarter for the balloting, so
we're now six months after the original ballot. If the TC takes longer than
53 days they wait nine months.

Then, perhaps, restrict resubmissions to once or twice?

</karl>