Re: TC visibility section question

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

[tallen@sonic.net:]

| I happened to miss the first meeting of the ER TC.  So (as I
| gather, I haven't checked) I'm not a member until I attend some
| more meetings.  I think the reasonable way to handle this is not
| to kick me off the list, but for me to refrain from posting to it,
| and for Lauren to reprove me if I do.

I think so, too.

[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.

The process for amending the bylaws is well established: it
requires a vote of the board of directors.

[lauren@sqwest.bc.ca:]

| The discussion started off because the process didn't expressly
| say whether prospective members were allowed to post

Sure it does.  Only members can post, and prospective members
aren't members.

[eduardo.gutentag@eng.sun.com:]

| I think that since the software cannot accomodate (easily) the
| demands of the rules, it should be left to the chairs of the
| respective TCs whether their mailing lists are open to all OASIS
| members or not.

We can't make optional something that's specified clearly in the
bylaws.

[robin@isogen.com:]

| 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.

Exactly.  If this is really broken, we have to propose to the
board that the process be amended.  I don't think we should
hesitate to do this when appropriate, by the way.

| It will be interesting to see if the "comments" lists are
| used.  Some of the W3C comment lists are pretty active.  I
| think a practical advantage of having the TC lists open to
| OASIS P*s is that some non-members who lurk in order to
| track a discussion may become interested, and motivated to
| join the TC so that they can contribute.  That's what we want,
| I assume. 

Yes.  This is what the comments list is for.

The distinction between the TC list and the comments list was
modeled on the distinction between the W3C XML WG list and the W3C
XML SIG list.  Most of us will recall that the WG list was used
for formal discussions among the voting members and the SIG list
was used for general discussion among a larger community of
interest.  This model worked fine, but it did require the chair to
keep the distinction straight and send nastygrams to non-WG
members who posted to the WG list.

[btusdin@mulberrytech.com:]

| I think there is another alternative: allow any OASIS member to
| subscribe to the list, and TELL THEM that unless they are TC
| members they are not allowed to post to the list.  Then, if they
| break that rule (possibly if they break the rule several times)
| unsubscribe them.  There is nothing in the by-laws that says that
| all rules must be mechanically enforced; just there are these
| three categories of people.

Right.  There's very little in the bylaws that can be mechanically
enforced given current technology.

[robin@isogen.com:]

| The committee process does not obligate us to provide a technical
| solution which (technically) prevents non-TC-members from posting
| to a discussion list.  It only proscribes such action by the
| non-member.  We can honor the process (and alleviate unnecessary
| burden from Karl) by asking P*s to behave correctly.  The TC
| chairs have a means of dealing with ill-mannered participants, as
| I recall.

Yup.

[karl.best@oasis-open.org:]

| We've got three classes of people: TC members who can post and
| receive; OASIS members who are not TC members, who can receive but
| not post; and non-OASIS members who can only view archives and
| post comments. To serve these three classes we have only two
| lists, discussion and comment.

Actually, they are called the general list and the comment list.
The "discussion list" can be whichever of these two lists the TC
decides to use for particular discussions.  If a discussion should
be limited to TC members, it should be held on the general list;
if it should be open to all interested P*s, then it should be held
on the comment list.  This does require that the chair actively
moderate discussions and maintain the distinction between real
members and people who just drop by for a chat.

It may indeed prove advisable further on to revise this structure,
but we should try it out first.  Please note that the rather
daring amount of formal business we allow TCs to conduct by mail
under Art. 14 Sect. 14 presupposes that the list in which this
business occurs limits active participation to the voting members.

If we do decide for practical reasons to recommend an amendment to
Art. 14 Sect. 9, I think it should be simply to disallow
subscriptions to the general list by nonmembers of the TC.  This
may be what we should have done in the first place.  Any
interested party can follow the TC discussion by checking the
archives.  (In fact, if you get a lot of mail, it can actually be
easier to monitor a group by checking its archive because it's
more immediately evident what the latest message is.)

Jon