Re: TC visibility section question

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

Robin Cover wrote:
> 
> 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.

The discussion started off because the process didn't expressly say
whether prospective members were allowed to post, and I wasn't sure
whether we'd thought through that case. Then Karl pointed out that he
currently can't enforce the TC-member-only process. That's how we got to
be discussing that point. I agree that our process is clear that any
PEOPTC may be subscribed, but only TC members can post. Jon has assured
us that the prospective members shouldn't be allowed to post, so the
chair just has to keep a list of the three classes of subscribers: TC
members, who may post, TC prospective members, who may not post but who
will be allowed to at some time in the future, and OASIS members who are
subscribed, who may not post.

> 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.

I agree that the chair can't decide; the whole point to the process was
to nail down as much as possible to give the chair both guidance and
protection.

Lauren