Re: TC visibility section question

[Robin Cover <robin@isogen.com>]

Chalk it up to my enneagram (or shoot me if you prefer),
but I'm a little surprised we're having this discussion,
absent a ratified process for amending the duly adopted
(?) new articles of the OASIS bylaws.

No, I don't want to be kicked off the ER list.  More to the
point: the Bylaws ensure my right to be subscribed.  No
doubt we "got it wrong" in a lot of PAC 14/15 details, and no
doubt some details of implementation may prove not to be "easy."
But until there's an agreed-upon process for making
amendments, I question whether it's right to just
express opinions, on a case-by-case basis, whether we
think the process should be honored or snubbed.  For
that reason (unless it's a formal proposal for
amendment), I don't think Eduardo's suggestion ("let the
TC chair decide") can stand.

Then again, I missed some key meetings; I may be
misinformed about the whole affair.  Maybe the Bylaws are
just general suggestions for operations.

Cheers,

Robin

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Lauren Wood wrote:

> Well, since Terry, Debbie, Robin and Karl would all be kicked off the ER
> TC mailing list (amongst others) if we do this - what do you think?
> 
> Lauren
> 
> Karl Best wrote:
> > 
> > Given the limitations of the mail service that we are using, I don't have an
> > easy way to allow only a certain subset of subscribers to post to a list.
> > The choices I have available are a) only subscribers may post to the list,
> > and b) anyone can post. (There *is* an option to only allow a subset of
> > subscribers to post, but maintaining that separate list takes a lot of
> > work.) What I need to enforce is that only full-fledged TC members are
> > subscribed to the TC discussion list. Non-TC-members, which may include
> > OASIS members, may not be subscribed to the discussion list, but must avail
> > themselves of the list archives and the comment list to participate.
> > 
> > Given this, I will need to work with the various TC chairs to determine who
> > the actual TC members are, and kick everyone else off the lists. In some
> > cases, e.g. DSML, a majority of list subscribers, including some of the most
> > active participants, are non-members, and this will cause a considerable
> > disruption to the committee work. But we've either got to a) bite the bullet
> > and do it officially, or b) relax the rules and say that anyone can
> > participate in the discussions but only members can vote.
> > 
> > I suspect that taking the hard line may turn the circuitous comment lists
> > into the place where all the work gets done, and the discussion (members
> > only) lists will only be used for voting.
> > 
> > Comments?
> > 
> > </karl>
> > ============================================================
> > Karl F. Best
> > OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
> > 978.667.5115 x206
> > karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jon Bosak [mailto:bosak@boethius.eng.sun.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 9:13 AM
> > > To: workprocess@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: Re: TC visibility section question
> > >
> > >
> > > [lauren@sqwest.bc.ca:]
> > >
> > > | This section states that only members of a TC may post to the
> > > | general mailing list of the TC. My question is: what about
> > > | prospective members? They may attend meetings (including phone
> > > | meetings at the discretion of the chair) so it makes sense to me to
> > > | allow them to also post to the general mailing list.
> > >
> > > If prospective members were given the right to post to the TC
> > > list, there would be no distinction between TC members and all
> > > OASIS members; i.e., gaining the right to post to the list would
> > > simply mean sending a message to the chair rather than sending a
> > > subscription request to the server.  People who want to send
> > > comments to the TC have a comments list for this purpose.
> > >
> > > | As a meta-question: it looks like we might need a slight revision
> > > | of the process as we set up TCs to work with it to answer such
> > > | questions - what's the best way of doing this? For example, most
> > > | technical specs need an editor so the ER TC nominated and voted on
> > > | one. Do we need a FAQ for little questions that don't need a
> > > | change to the process?
> > >
> > > I believe Ken volunteered to put something like this together.
> > >
> > > By the way, I think that the best way to put together an editorial
> > > team is to constitute it as a subcommittee so that it has a
> > > structure and procedures of its own.
> > >
> > > Jon
> > >
>