The fact that they are two separate things. The fact that they were
separate until they were munged due to Kavi's limitations. The fact
that being able to read a TC's messages should not imply that you
are a member of the TC.
Eck, Jeffery (GXS) wrote:
> What is the motivation behind the potential of separate categories?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 12:08 PM
> To:
> Cc: ;
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS TC Member
> Attendance Rules
>
>
>
> Karl F. Best wrote:
> > Well, Kavi allows setting RO/RW permissions as well as voting
> > permissions. But it seems to me that we're starting to talk about
> > defining a new type of member under the TC Process.
>
> Jon may be talking about this, not me...I believe that the
> confusion (as witnessed by postings received after yours)
> will intensify and become untenable the longer
> the distinction between TC membership and email list privileges
> continues being blurred.
>
> We started with a clear concept: one could be a member in a TC
> by following certain procedures defined in the process; as a side
> effect of that one would also have RW privileges in the TC email
> list. And the chair could grant, upon request, email privileges to
> people outside the TC.
>
> So far so good.
>
> Then Kavi came, and suddenly one could be a TC member without voting
> rights, or a TC member without voting rights and only read privileges
> on the email list, or a prospective member with voting rights, and who
> knows what else, and the distinction between TC membership and alias
> membership was totally destroyed, both in language and, apparently,
> in concept...
>
> And reading Jon's statement below, it seems that he and I are actually
> in total agreement; let me repeat what he says, with emphasis added:
>
> "It seems that several of us are in agreement on the desirability
> of creating an official category for *members of a TC /mailing/ list*
> who are *not* also members ... of a TC."
>
> IOW, what John is proposing is a mail list category, not a TC category;
> as such, what he proposes should not touch on the TC process.
>
> What *I* would like to see, instead of a button that says "Join this
> TC" in a TC's home page, is two buttons, one which says the same and
> upon being pressed instructs the user to send email to the chair of the
> TC, as per the TC process, and a second button, this one saying: "Join
> this TC's mailing list(s)", which then instructs the user how to join
> the email lists. Two different buttons for two different processes. And
> of course the roster pages manipulated by the chairs would have to
> change too...
>
> >
> > Right now the TC Process defines a TC member (who I've set up in Kavi as
> > RW, voting), Prospective member (RW, non-vote), and other eligible
> > people (an Observer, RO, non-vote).
> >
> > It sounds to me like you're talking about adding a new type of person,
> > the non-voting member (RW, non-vote) who isn't intedning to become a
> > member at this time. I know how to do this in Kavi, but I'm not sure
> > what to call this type of person under the Process.
> >
> > -Karl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
> >
> >> Why? I thought we were precisely talking about changes to the Kavi
> >> process, *not* the TC process, reflecting in part my concern about
> >> Kavi changing the TC process (which is what you seem to imply in your
> >> note) rather than the TC process influencing how things are presented
> >> in Kavi...
> >>
> >> Karl F. Best wrote:
> >>
> >>> I appreciate the input (and always happy to hear suggestions) but
> >>> this is something that I'll have to bring up with the Board's TC
> >>> Process subcommittee, who is currently working on a revision of the
> >>> Process document.
> >>>
> >>> -Karl
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It seems that several of us are in agreement on the desirability
> >>>> of creating an official category for members of a TC mailing list
> >>>> who are not also members (strictly speaking) of a TC. The
> >>>> question is what to call this category. Scott likes "nonvoting
> >>>> member" for marketing reasons. Eduardo and I dislike this
> >>>> nomenclature because in parliamentary practice (meaning Robert's,
> >>>> which specifies 99.9 per cent of the rules that govern formal TC
> >>>> operation) the word "member" means "voting member," "voting
> >>>> member" is frowned upon as a term containing a redundancy, and
> >>>> "nonvoting member" is considered to be a contradiction in terms.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest that we try for a category name that does not contain an
> >>>> internal contradiction but serves better for marketing purposes
> >>>> than "observer with posting privileges." How about "participant"?
> >>>> That would not only serve almost as well as "member" in the resume
> >>>> scenario but would also have the benefit of truthfully
> >>>> representing the nature of one's involvement in the process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jon
> >>>>
> >>>> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:34:26 -0700
> >>>> From: Eduardo Gutentag <>
> >>>> Cc: , , ,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems like I said something that was open to misinterpretation.
> So,
> >>>> just in case, I'd like to clarify that my comment, "What I would
> >>>> like
> >>>> to see is for the Kavi process to follow the OASIS TC process and
> >>>> not
> >>>> the other way around..." was not meant in any way to disparage the
> >>>> participation of observers in the mailing lists. What I did mean,
> >>>> though, was that I did not think it was appropriate to munge TC
> >>>> participation with mailing list participation; that until very
> >>>> recently there was no language separating the two, and those who
> >>>> wanted to monitor the lists were invited to join the TCs, thus
> >>>> potentially inflating the ranks of the quorum-busters ;). When a
> >>>> chair goes to the Add a member section of the roster maintenance
> >>>> page, the chair is still told that someone can be added as a
> member
> >>>> of the TC because he/she has qualified according to the rules,
> which
> >>>> is false, and that some ballots may allow only members with voting
> >>>> privileges to vote, which is also false, because according to the
> >>>> process there are no such ballots, IOW only voting members (which
> >>>> is the only kind of *TC* members there are) can vote...
> >>>>
> >>>> So it's not that I'm unhappy with the functionality of the mailing
> >>>> lists; it the language and lack of differentiation between mailing
> >>>> lists and TCs that make me less than happy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Scott McGrath wrote:
> >>>> > Allow me to toss out a members' perspective, one that has
> >>>> little to do
> >>>> > with the strictly technical components of TC participation.
> >>>> > > People derive benefits from > 'being a member" of OASIS
> >>>> TCs for a lot of different reasons. Some such
> >>>> > reasons are strictly warm and fuzzy stuff--it makes them feel
> >>>> like an
> >>>> > important part of the process. Further, I would wager OASIS TC
> >>>> > membership is in more than a few employee performance
> >>>> evaluations, goals
> >>>> > etc as a measure of meeting some corporate objective. >
> >>>> > That said, we should be careful not to marginalize or sideline
> those
> >>>> > that can only contribute minimally and cannot commit to travel,
> >>>> meeting
> >>>> > attendance, concalls at 3am etc I think Jon's point is valid,
> >>>> these
> >>>> > members are an important part of the process and we should find
> >>>> ways to
> >>>> > enable that. (remembering these are dues paying members like
> >>>> all others)
> >>>> > > Notwithstanding the contradictory nature of the term
> >>>> non-voting member,
> >>>> > I think it serves the above needs well and I think one
> >>>> intuitively knows
> >>>> > what these mean. I think grouping those with some valid input
> >>>> with
> >>>> > other non-contributing Observers is less correct than
> grouping all
> >>>> > contributing persons as members, where only those seeking and
> >>>> abiding by
> >>>> > the restrictions have voting rights, quorum implications etc.
> >>>> > > Scott...
> >>>> > > -----Original Message-----
> >>>> > From: [mailto:] > Sent:
> >>>> Tuesday, July 01, 2003 2:37 PM
> >>>> > To:
> >>>> > Cc: ; ;
> ;
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Subject: Re: [chairs] Subtleties in the OASIS TC Member
> >>>> Attendance Rules
> >>>> > > I certainly don't disagree with the premise that the kavi
> >>>> > interface should align with the official OASIS TC process, but I
> >>>> > am finding the category that allows observers to post on
> occasion
> >>>> > to be extremely useful from an organizational standpoint. The
> >>>> > problem, as I see it, lies in calling this category "nonvoting
> >>>> > member," which from a parliamentary standpoint is a
> contradiction
> >>>> > in terms. The interface should be distinguishing between
> >>>> > "read/write" and "read-only" observers rather than between
> >>>> "voting"
> >>>> > and "nonvoting" members.
> >>>> > > | I'm working an fixes to Kavi to support this, but
> >>>> unfortunately
> >>>> > | it's not going well...
> >>>> > > Since we're starting to depend fairly heavily on the
> >>>> (badly named)
> >>>> > "nonvoting member" category, I'm actually glad to hear that
> you're
> >>>> > not making rapid progress on fixing this....
> >>>> > > Jon
> >>>>
> >>>> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> >>>>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
> Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442
> Sun Microsystems Inc. |
> W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair
>
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/chairs/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
--
Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc. |
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair
