[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xcbf] Ballot failed, or new version started? Who has approvedthe version 2 draft?
John, The TC is at an important moment of transition. We are ending one phase and beginning another. OASIS rules require votes and formalities to ensure that the TC process is open and fair. I'm trying to leave things tidy for the next chair. And I'm trying to do what I can in the time remaining to better the chances of of participation and of the TC being productive in the coming year as it takes on new material. We were unable to achieve 0% NO votes after putting your VXER amendment in the document, and we were unable to achieve 0% NO votes after taking it out. But given that the affected parts of the XCBF are not even likely to ever be used, this is far from an important technical issue. I sincerely believe that come September or so, when your proposed amendment to the ASN.1 standards is balloted, approved and published, all opposition to VXER (or whatever it is called by then) will disappear. Phil John Larmouth wrote: > Phil, > > This is getting tedious. Please stop counting votes and formalities. > > What we need is sensible discussion leading to a consensus on the > contents of the document. > > There is no reason why you can't achieve 0% NO votes if you will just > have some technical discussion rather than all this political stuff. > > John L > > > Phillip H. Griffin wrote: > >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]