Re: PAC: Vote: CS 6 (except IPR)

["Lauren Wood" <lauren@sqwest.bc.ca>]

> Jon Bosak wrote:
> > 
> > To: workprocess@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: PAC: Vote: CS 6 (except IPR)
> > 
> > Since I need to put this in the draft of the bylaws I promised to
> > get out, and since (except for the IPR issue) the language I sent
> > out last Sunday seems to be uncontroversial, I'm going to call the
> > question on this part while we continue the IPR discussion
> > separately.  If we can agree on an additional IPR clause, I'll add
> > that in later.
> > 
> > Please vote on this as soon as possible by sending mail to the
> > list.  I will stop taking votes Wednesday evening, but I hope that
> > we can get a majority well before then.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> >    [unresolved issue to be decided in Paris: IPR policy for the
> >    standards process; Terry Allen has said that he intends to
> >    propose IETF rules]
> > 
> > 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 thirty days to return a ballot approving or
> > disapproving the proposal.
> > 
> >    ["thirty days" has been substituted for an occurrence of "one
> >    month" in this paragraph per comment from Eduardo.]
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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
> >    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.

I vote yes.



Lauren