RE: [chairs] Is it? RE: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?

Scott,

 

How about this for a suggestion - when people log-in to
OASIS-open.org - they see a link that offers them the chance to peruse
the members discussion archive?  Also members probably have no
idea that they can post there right now.

 

Otherwise I suspect this is a classic lamp hidden under a bush...

 

DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[chairs] Is it?  RE: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting
is
Somewhat  Absurd?
From: "Scott McGrath"
<>
Date: Tue, October 04, 2005
4:41 pm
To: "'David Webber (XML)'"
<>,
<>

David,

The
member-discuss group has a unique attribute that offers the best of
both
worlds.  ALL OASIS members with an active member account
(who have not opted
out) can send email to the member-discuss list
without the burden of joining
the group or receiving all the group
mail.  Of course, any member can join
the group to receive the
mail, or the list-adverse can scan the archives.
This gives the best
of both worlds- an "all-members" list you desire for
this type of
conversation, but without burdening members  to actually be
on
the list.

For the reasons you point out, we encourage
these types of discussion to
migrate to the member-discuss group and
(if staff has somehow missed it) let
us know so we can publicize the
discussion via OASIS News, etc.

Do you see how we could, in this
way, capture the thoughts of ALL members
without confusing the
purpose of the Chairs list?

Scott...

>
-----Original Message-----
> From: David Webber (XML)
[mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 12:12
PM
> To: ; James Bryce Clark
>
Subject: Re: [chairs] Is it? RE: [chairs] OASIS Organizational Voting
is
> Somewhat Absurd?
> 
> Jamie,
> 
>
Unfortunately there are only 25 people on that "members discuss" list
-
> and
> most are not actually just run of the mill
members.
> 
> If you really want to make discussion happen
you should have a full member
> list with everyone automatically
on it.
> 
> However - I suspect the real story is that
people are extremely list-
> averse
> because of email
overload.
> 
> Hence - whether or not the Ubermensche like
it or not - this remains the
> best forum for informed
discussion
> within OASIS itself - and for coordination through
to the full membership.
> 
> Just stating the
obvious.
> 
> DW
> 
> 
> ----- Original
Message -----
> From: "James Bryce Clark"
<>
> To:
<>
> Sent: Friday, September 30,
2005 3:28 PM
> Subject: [chairs] Is it? RE: [chairs] OASIS
Organizational Voting is
> Somewhat Absurd?
> 
>

> >      This is an interesting thread.
 It might be more accessible to
> members
> > --
and also better would serve our hope to avoid long threads on
this
> > mandated list -- if it were moved to the general
membership discussion
> list
> > at
.
> >    
 We do want to keep traffic on this particular list
low-overhead,
> where
> > possible, because the only way
off this list is to stop being a TC
> chair.
> >  
   On the merits, I do have some thoughts, but will put them
over in
> the
> > anticipated oasis-member-discuss
thread.
> >     Regards  Jamie
>
>
> > ~   James Bryce Clark
> > ~  
Director, Standards Development, OASIS
> > ~  

> >
> > At 09:48 AM
9/29/2005, Philpott, Robert wrote:
> > >+1.  Its not
easy for even moderate-sized TCs to avoid having to send
>
out
> > >the plea for votes. * * *
> >
>
> > >>From: Wachob, Gabe
[mailto:]
> > >>Sent: Thursday,
September 29, 2005 12:28 PM
> > >>To:

> > >>Subject: [chairs]
OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?
> >
>>
> > >>An issue about the way OASIS holds
organizational votes to move TC
> drafts
> > >>to
OASIS specifications has been gnawing on me for quite a while.
>
Under
> > >>the current rules, 15% of organizational
members have to vote yes on a
> > >>specification.
Currently, according to my rough research, this is 15%
>
of
> > >>342 voting organizations or 52 positive votes
required *minimum*.  * *
> *
> >
> >