[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Avoiding motions on text drafted during telcons
This isn't in reference to issue #12. If you go back to the original email in the thread I said: "If the changes are minor, such as the resolution we ultimately approved for issue 12 which included a combination of previously proposed text and a very slight modification to the original text, it may be appropriate to craft the text and consider a motion in the same meeting." Sorry if that wasn't clear. -----Original Message----- From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:43 AM To: ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Avoiding motions on text drafted during telcons Please let us put this in perspective; we deleted one word! Martin. >-----Original Message----- >From: Colleen Evans [mailto:coevans@microsoft.com] >Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:47 PM >To: Martin Chapman; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Avoiding motions on text drafted during telcons > > >Our course - it's RRO ;-). > >I'm simply proposing we avoid on the spot decisions about >substantially reworded text without the benefit of time to >consider the full impact. > >Colleen > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] >Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 10:55 AM >To: Colleen Evans; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [ws-tx] Avoiding motions on text drafted during telcons > >opps replied to wrong mail >jet lag arghhhhhh > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] >>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 5:47 PM >>To: 'Colleen Evans'; ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: RE: [ws-tx] NEW Issue: WS-C: Clarify normative >>requirements for MU attribute. >> >> >>I have to strongly disagree. If anyone is uncomfortable with a >>motion they can ask for it to be tabled (US style), vote >>against etc etc. A blanket ban on such motions is harmful and >>may come back to bite us in an unmentionable place, as will >>inventing process where no invention is required. >> >>In this particular case as well, we did have a concrete >>proposal and it didn't involve pages of text either; >>it was well manageable for a con call, especially with irc support. >> >> >>Martin. >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]