← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [cgmopen-ms] Re: [cgmopen-sc] Some next steps on your move to CGMO Foundation
[Message 2 of 2] Hi Scott, At 11:10 AM 6/12/2013 -0400, Scott McGrath wrote: Hi Lofton, you are correct to assume my motive is a smooth transition, and one at a pace you are comfortable with. That said, you are correct that the remaining SC members may appoint someone fill the vacancy until the next election (MS Policy, Section 5.5) if you so desire. My apologies if I misinterpreted the situation and suggested a path forward toward quick migration. Right, we will do this to keep the SC in good standing for a bit longer. Indeed, we do desire a quick migration, but (as explained in previous message) we presently have some temporary limits on the effort we can apply to effect such. The last few years, the Steering Committee and Member Section have been all but dormant, so I didn't imagine you had interest in keeping it open after acknowledging you no longer need that infrastructure. I may have misunderstood your recently accelerated actions focused on transition as signal that keeping the MS active was not in your plan. While you are welcome to keep it open as long as you like, following the MS Policy, here is why it might not be necessary: I've provided a courtesy 30 day membership extension to your non-renewing SC member, that extension will expire 30 June. That is 2 weeks after the ballot to migrate closes, and presumably passed. So the SC won't have much to do after that. We do appreciate your courtesy extension. However we don't anticipate having everything wrapped up by the end of June (as explained before). Hence it seems prudent to keep the CGMO MS/SC structures intact for a bit longer during the transition. The Asset transfer is technically approved by the TC, and is a well illustrated process in the Liaison Policy, so the SC isn't a necessary cog in that works. Most of you are still members in good standing and have an audience with staff and the board as you deem appropriate, so keeping the MS open doesn't provide much value, IMHO. Thanks for the pointer -- we'll have a good look at the Liaison Policy, which we haven't done yet. (Agreed ... not much value. But it doesn't hurt to hold onto the structures for a bit longer, in our opinion, and may prove useful in some scenario that we haven't considered yet.) Closing the Member Section, a process initiated either by vote of the SC or by lack of members in the SC, can't be competed without a board vote.  The next board meeting is 27 July. So you could vote to close before 30 June, or let it happen organically after that, without any impact on your migration plan. We'll consider and discuss these options, thanks. hope that helps, Indeed, thanks for your helpful comments and expertise about the process road ahead. -Lofton. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Lofton Henderson <> wrote: Scott -- In haste, as the next 2 days are very busy... Thanks for your pointers. Some of these we are already dealing with, some will need attention and your process expertise is essential. I think underlying your wishes, and ours as well, is a smooth and deliberate transition. In my way of thinking, the (at least formal) existence of the MS for some short while will help enable such. With this in mind, I'd like to query about your point #4 below. As I recall, the OASIS MS Policy (and/or the CGMO MS RoP) allows that the remaining SC members can fill the vacancy until next regular SC election time. Is that correct? That, for example, is what we did when Dieter retired. More later, -Lofton. At 06:08 PM 6/11/2013 -0400, Scott McGrath wrote: As we get close to the end of you balloting period to formalize your decision to move your operations to the new CGM Open Foundation, allow me to point out a few process points to speed your transition: 1. If you haven't already done so, begin the process to formalize your new CGM Open Foundation. � We will need a established non-profit entity as recipient of your transferred assets. 2. The process by which we formally permit future development of existing OASIS Standards is described in the Liaison Policy. � Once the Member Section ballot closes affirmatively, we will work with the TC, giving them the right language for a motion. 3. � We expect a vote to close the TC, here too we will give proper language. � Do not invoke that, until the TC approves the spec submission to the new CGM Open Foundation. 4. � You can vote to close the Member Section, though that is not necessary because the Steering Committee is imminently below the minimum number of members with one member whose membership is past renewal and in a grace period awaiting closure of your ballot to transition. hope that helps, Scott... -- Scott McGrath COO Tel +1 781-425-5073 x202 Fax +1 781-425-5072 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn: � � http://linked.in/OASISopen Twitter: � � � � http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook: � http://facebook.com/oasis.open -- Scott McGrath COO Tel +1 781-425-5073 x202 Fax +1 781-425-5072 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:   http://linked.in/OASISopen Twitter:     http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:  http://facebook.com/oasis.open
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →