Does OASIS support an electronic attendance tool? A
couple of other standards that I work on have gone to this method and it is very
effective way to avoid wasting time taking attendance.
Cheers,
Scott
From: Jon Callas [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 1:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [kmip] Voting by
email?
On Apr 30, 2009, at 11:24 AM, <>
wrote:
IMO,
email voting is not likely to "speed things up". An email vote is
considered an "electronic ballot" and is treated the same as a ballot using
the web-based Kavi ballot system. The TC Process requires electronic
ballots to remain open for a minimum of 7 days.
Also,
unless the TC has adopted the standing rule described below (which we have not
done), the motion/second to do an email/Kavi ballot must be done during a TC
meeting with quorum present. So, at the next TC meeting, we could move
to start an electronic email ballot, but we can’t close it until a minimum of
7 days have passed.
In
general, non-f2f TC meetings work most effectively if as much discussion as
possible on important items is driven to the email list. The meetings can then
focus as much as possible on items that simply require some clarification and
voting.
For
info on electronic balloting in TC’s, see http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-06-19.php#voting:
“Electronic Voting: TCs may conduct electronic ballots,
either by using the TC’s general mail list or the publicly archived electronic
voting functionality provided by OASIS. The minimum period allowed for
electronic voting shall be seven days; the TC may specify a longer voting
period for a particular electronic ballot. Any Specification Ballot conducted
as an electronic ballot must permit each voter to choose "yes", "no" or
"abstain."
“A
motion to open an electronic ballot must be made in a TC meeting unless the TC
has adopted a standing rule to allow this motion to be made on the TC’s
general email list. When such a rule has been adopted, motions made on the
mail list must also be seconded and discussed on that
list.”
Okay, it sounds to me like we're in
mostly violent agreement.
I agree completely with your comment that as much should be done on email
lists as possible. This morning, it took us twenty-plus minutes on the call to
do a roll call and achieve quorum. Yes, that can likely easily halve itself, but
we're still consuming a large part of the meeting in pure overhead.
When I said "email" I mean more of an electronic ballot of any sort. I
really don't care what the mechanism is, I just want more effective use of the
phone call.
If the web-based voting has higher latency, that's too bad, but I think we
can get higher throughput that way. In most ballots, it's going to be mostly
obvious where things are going, anyway. For example, with Matt's binary
alignment proposal, we're mostly in agreement on it with just one point open for
debate. That debate's likely to sort itself out on the mailing list. We can thus
use the valuable phone time for things that are best done on the phone other
than running down a roll call. That's the sort of boring, repetitive task that
computers are ideal for solving.
Jon
--
Jon Callas
CTO, CSO
PGP Corporation Tel: +1 (650) 319-9016
200 Jefferson Drive Fax: +1 (650) 319-9001
Menlo Park, CA 94025 PGP: ed15 5bdf cd41 adfc
00f3
USA
28b6 52bf 5a46 bc98 e63d
