Re: PAC: Newly revised language for CS 6

[Eduardo Gutentag <eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com>]

Jon Bosak wrote:
> 
> To: workprocess@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: PAC: Newly revised language for CS 6
> 
> Here's what I've done in accordance with the discussion of CS 6
> during our meeting of 2000.05.25:
> 
> 1. Removed old notes.
> 
> 2. Removed the IPR clause; see the message "PAC: IPR clause in CS
>    6" for more about this.
> 
> 3. Added 10 percent affirmative to the vote required to approve a
>    standard.
> 
> 4. Added requirement for publicly visible voting.
> 
> 5. Added ability to change votes.
> 
> 6. Simplified the language describing the procedure for voting;
>    please check this out.
> 
> 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.  OASIS 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 OASIS:
> 
>    1. A formal specification that is a valid member of its type.
> 
>    2. Appropriate documentation for the specification, written in
>       the language of reference.
> 
>    3. A clear English-language summary of the specification.
> 
>    4. Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations
>       that they are successfully using the specification.
> 
>    5. 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.
> 
>    6. A pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the
>       originating TC.
> 
> 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.  [Note that we need to define "calendar quarter"
> someplace.]

This may have already been mentioned (remember, I missed a call), but
I think "At the beginning of the next calendar quarter" is ambiguous
wrt "next".  I also have problems with "immediately following".  May I 
suggest the following:

"Thirty days shall be allowed for administrative processing of a
proposed standard. The last day of that period shall denote the
initial calendar quarter. The proposal shall be submitted to the OASIS
membership for review at the beginning of the calendar quarter
immediately following the initial calendar quarter. At the beginning
of the calendar quarter immediately following the review 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.

[Note: "one month" is vague; I'd much prefer "30 days"]

> 
> 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.  [new language:] Votes shall be cast by sending
> electronic mail to a publicly archived list created for this
> purpose.  Votes may be changed up until the end of the voting
> period.
> 
> 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.

[Karl, is one week enough to verify that all the votes have been cast
by members in good standing?]

> 
> [all of the following has been substantially reworded]
> 
> If at the end of the voting period at least 10 percent of the
> voting membership has voted to approve the proposed standard, then
> 
> a. If no votes have been cast to disapprove the proposed standard,
>    it shall become an OASIS standard immediately following the end
>    of the voting period.
> 
> b. If negative votes amounting to less than 10 percent of the
>    voting membership have been cast, the negative votes and
>    accompanying comments, if any, shall be forwarded to the
                                              ^^^^^^^
I thought that at some point there was talk that negative votes had
to be accompanied by comments... was I dreaming?

>    originating TC for consideration.  After notification of the
>    results, the TC shall have 30 days to take one of the following
>    actions by formal resolution:
> 
>    1. direct OASIS to approve the specification as submitted
>       despite the negative votes, or
> 
>    2. withdraw the submission entirely, or
> 
>    3. submit an amended specification, in which case the amended
>       submission shall be considered as if it were a new
>       submission, except that information regarding previous votes
>       and any disposition of comments received in previous votes
>       shall accompany the amended submission.
> 
> If at the end of the voting period less than 10 percent of the
> voting membership has voted to approve the proposed standard, or
> if at the end of the voting period 10 percent or more of the
> voting membership has voted to disapprove the proposed standard,
> or if the orginating TC upon notification of negative votes takes
> no formal action within the 30 days allocated for consideration of
> the results, then the specification shall not become an OASIS
> standard.  This shall not prevent the same or similar
> specification from being submitted again.

[last call: are we sure we don't want to impose limits on how many
times a spec can be submitted?  My apologies if I'm kicking a dead
horse...]

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo@eng.Sun.COM
XML Technology Center          |         Phone:  (650) 786-5498
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |         fax:    (650) 786-5727