Re: PAC: Suggested language for CS 6

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

[kfbest@earthlink.net:]

| We should allow the quarterly schedule to be offset from calender
| quarters.  I don't like the idea of having to start a voting cycle
| (i.e. sending out a bunch of new considerations for the next
| quarter and ballots for this quarter) on January 1. Nor do I think
| people want to have ballots due on December 31.

For simple-minded people like me, having the quarters line up with
the calendar year is a real blessing.  If it bothers me to be
mailing in ballots on December 31 then I can jolly well make up my
mind earlier in the quarter.  And no one is saying that you have
to work on a holiday.

[btusdin@mulberrytech.com:]

| I suggest an alternate, that won't take significantly longer but
| that I think will significantly increase votes:
| 
| "Any proposed standards shall be submitted to the OASIS
| administrator thirty days before the start of a callendar quarter,
| to allow time for administrative processing.  The proposal shall
| be submitted to the OASIS membership for information purposes as
| part of a quarterly package of standards-related information.  The
| membership shall be informed that a vote on this standard will be
| called by the following quarterly packet of standards related
| information.  The following quarter, in the quarterly packed of
| standards related information shall appear a ballot on the
| proposed standard."

Let's assume for purposes of discussion that the year begins
January 1.  Let's pretend that I'm the chair of a TC that meets
the first week of January and votes to send a specification to
OASIS for standardization.  Then the next quarterly package goes
out March 1, the call for a vote goes out July 1, and the vote on
our proposed standard ends September 30.  That's almost nine
months.

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a really long time?

Jon