PAC: Revised language for CS 6

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

To: workprocess@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: PAC: Revised language for CS 6

The following reflects comments received on this subject so far.
Since this has already received a fair amount of discussion, I
will be moving to adopt the language proposed here in our meeting
Wednesday.

Jon

==================================================================

CS 6. Standards and Languages

OASIS TCs shall be authorized to work in any language they choose.
The language of reference for a TC shall be declared at the same
time its meeting schedule is first proposed.  Formal actions of
TCs shall be governed by the same rules regardless of the language
in which the work is taking place.  Administrators designated by
the OASIS board shall be responsible for certifying compliance
with procedural and technical criteria.

A TC that has approved and published a committee specification may
simultaneously or at some later time recommend that the
specification be made an OASIS standard.  Upon resolution of the
TC to move the specification forward, its chair shall submit the
following items to a designated representative of the board:

   1. A formal specification that is a valid member of its type
      (if an XML schema, it validates; if source code for a
      program module, it compiles; etc.).

   2. Appropriate documentation for the specification, written in
      the language of reference.

   3. A clear English-language summary of the specification.

   4. Certification by the voting members of the TC that the
      specification is copyrightable and publishable by OASIS and
      usable by everyone without charge.  Standard language to
      accomplish this objective shall be prepared by OASIS counsel
      for use by all TCs.

   5. Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations
      that they are successfully using the specification.

   6. An account of votes and comments received in any earlier
      attempts to standardize substantially the same
      specification, together with the originating TC's response
      to each comment.

   7. A pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the
      originating TC.

[the next two paras have been changed from the previous draft]

Thirty days shall be allowed for administrative processing of a
proposed standard.  The proposal shall be submitted to the OASIS
membership for review at the beginning of the calendar quarter
immediately following the 30 days allocated for administrative
review.  At the beginning of the next calendar quarter, the
proposal shall be submitted to the voting members of OASIS, who
shall have one month to return a ballot approving or disapproving
the proposal.

The TC that originated the specification may, by formal
resolution, withdraw the proposed specification at any point after
it is submitted to OASIS for administrative processing and before
the end of the voting period.

In votes upon proposed OASIS standards, every OASIS member
organization shall be entitled to cast one vote.  Individual
members (whether the membership is transferable or
non-transferable) shall not be entitled to vote in the approval of
OASIS standards.

   [Note that this is intended to reflect the current OASIS
   membership structure in line with our discussion.  Since the
   existing bylaws already distinguish between voting and
   nonvoting members, it would be logically equivalent to say
   nothing at all on this point, but silence will almost
   undoubtedly be misunderstood.  It would be clearer to say that
   the voting members for purposes of this section are the voting
   members in elections of the board of directors; this would be
   very clean with regard to future changes to the membership
   structure, but it would also allow this criterion to change if
   (for example) some future revision of the membership structure
   were to give individual members the right to vote in board
   elections.  Here I have assumed that we consider a vote by
   organizations rather than individuals to be fundamental to the
   difference between the approval of a committee specification
   and the approval of an OASIS standard.  Care will have to be
   taken in drafting language for the revised bylaws to correctly
   capture our intent.]

The results of a vote on a proposed standard shall be provided to
the membership and to the TC no later than one week following the
close of the voting period.

If a proposed specification has received no negative votes by the
end of the voting period, it shall become an OASIS standard.

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.

If a proposed specification has received negative votes totaling
less than 10 percent of the voting membership of OASIS, the
negative votes and accompanying comments, if any, shall be
forwarded to the originating TC for consideration.  After
notification of the results, the TC shall have 30 days to take one
of the following actions with regard to a submission that has
received negative votes from less than 10 percent of the
membership:

  (a) The TC may withdraw the submission.

  (b) The TC may resubmit an amended specification; in this case,
      the amended submission shall be considered as if it were a
      new submission, except that information regarding previous
      votes and the disposition of comments received in previous
      votes shall accompany the amended submission.

  (c) The TC may accept the submitted specification unchanged; in
      this case it shall become an OASIS standard 30 days after
      notification of the results.  This is the default outcome if
      the TC takes no action within 30 days following notification
      of the results.