RE: [xcbf] Ballot failed, or new version started? Who has approved the version 2 draft?

["Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@oss.com>]

Title: Message

 

What I see is that the Editor made changes to the current CS, accepting and rejecting ballot comments, then the Chair asked for a vote on the new document replacing the current CS.  5 members voted YES, 2 members voted NO, and 5 members did not vote.

 

One can hardly conclude that this document has approval of 71% of the members.

 

Also, I don't understand how this document can be designated as a "Version 2 draft", since the TC has never discussed about starting a new version.   Or is discussion in this TC unnecessary and consensus waived?

 

Alessandro

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:phil.griffin@asn-1.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 07:03
To: [OASIS XCBF]
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Ballot failed, or new version started? Who has approved the version 2 draft?

A "majority vote" is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks.

While a majority favored making the updated document a CS, a
super majority was required to replace the current CS.

The current draft is the latest version of the XCBF document, and
reflects the most recent progress of the editor.

It is a working document and still subject to change, but a majority
has voted in support of this draft.

Phil



Alessandro Triglia wrote:

Phil,

The question of the failed ballot was:

"Do you accept this document to replace our current CS?"

58% of the members of the TC voted, and 71% of them voted YES.
Therefore the ballot failed.  Now you are saying that this document has
"approval of 71% of the members".  I don't quite understand.  

Can you please clarify the status of this "version 2 draft", and who has
approved it?

Alessandro



  

-----Original Message-----
From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:phil.griffin@asn-1.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 23:10
To: [OASIS XCBF]
Subject: [xcbf] XCBF CS 1.0


The second automated TC ballot that closed on April 10, and 
which was approved by 71% of the XCBF TC, has failed to 
achieve the required super majority needed to approve this 
document as the new XCBF CS.

There were two votes to disapprove this document. These were 
made by OSS Nokalva members Paul Thorpe and Alessandro 
Triglia. Their comments are available for review in the member 
area of the web site.

I asked that the ballot be reviewed by OASIS administration. I 
have been informed that the ballot failed to achieve the 
required 2/3rds positive vote, and no more than 1/4th 
negative votes needed to approve a new CS. So in this case, 
the minority view prevails.

I have changed the designation of the April 3 revised document 
referenced in this ballot. It is now the XCBF version 2 draft 
document. This document has approval of 71% of the members.

I have restored to this folder the last document approved by the 
XCBF TC as a CS. This document is dated March 25 and 
designated as the XCBF CS 1.0. 

Phil