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.
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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
Vice President, OASIS
office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648
http://www.oasis-open.org
