Don,
I do not see any harm in making the condition "and/or" on
line 61. Thanks for the clarification. I will recommend it to read
as:
"a) A Member Section may be
created to support one or more OASIS Technical Committees through coordination
and/or funding of activities."
I read back through Jamie's emails and I don't find any
explicit reference to suggested text for a new item "d)". I believe that
the wording of item "c)" is broad enough to encompass the conditions Jamie was
describing where a MS may not have an initial TC and wants time to talk through
the details of what is most meaningful for the MS members e.g. "a particular
need". The third item still reads:
"a) A Member Section may be created when a
collection of OASIS Members recognize a particular need and are willing to
commit to work on that need over an extended period. ""
I replied to John G's email, and I thought my responses
answered his points, and I do not see a need to make any further
modifications to this new MS Policy. Membership funds allocation is
specified in the MS RoP, so no changes are needed now in the drafting and
approval of this MS Policy. We will clearly need to have dialog over the
next few months while we work through the drafting of a new LegalXML MS RoP
using the new RoP template (which simply is a single document template
using the RoP outline found in Section 1.2 of the MS Policy). I expect
that we will copy appropriate language which defines the membership funds
allocation out of the current RoP and paste it into the new RoP template.
I do not foresee any change in the 40% funding level, and we will work with the
LegalXML MS to draft the new RoP so that that funding is handled
accordingly. Again the issue mentioned in the MS Policy Section 7.3
regarding withholding funds only applies if the MS grossly under spends the
members funds allocated within the annual budget. I will be glad to discuss
this further on a LegalXML MS SC call. Please coordinate with Dee when you
wish to put this on your steering committee
agenda.
--
Patrick
Gannon
From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, January
17, 2007 12:24 PM
To: ''
Cc:
; ;
Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron
comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of
Directors.
I really believe that
some form of emphasis added on the word support would be helpful to get across
the intent. The phrase on the coordination and funding should be an
and/or condition rather than an or condition.
I believe that we
have identified a new item D. in the e-mail thread between Jamie and I.
Having a member section created to explore an area or discipline with the eye
to properly partitioning it may in the future be an extremely valuable and
productive use of the member section construct. This is especially true
where in order to properly handle intellectual property considerations
expansionist scope of technical committees is more problematic than it has
been in the past.
I concur on line
175.
Have you given
further thought to John’s comments?
Regards,
Don
Donald L.
Bergeron
Systems
Designer
LexisNexis
O
937-865-1276
H
937-748-2775
M
937-672-7781
From: Patrick
Gannon [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:50
AM
To: Bergeron, Donald L.
(LNG-DAY)
Cc:
;
Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron
comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of
Directors.
Don,
Attached is a
revision of the MS Policy with the two edits I mentioned below (regarding Line
59 and Line 173 in the previous version). Does this address the issues
you raised?
--
Patrick
Gannon
From:
Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16,
2007 6:17 AM
To:
''
Cc: ;
Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron
comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of
Directors.
I agree with your
replies. However, I strongly urge you to move option C. to be option
A. Within that section. The reason for this is that any member section alone
does nothing. It's preeminent purpose is to support technical
committees. If it does not do this then your other points do not
matter.
Regards,
Don
Donald L.
Bergeron
Systems
Designer
LexisNexis
O
937-865-1276
H
937-748-2775
M
937-672-7781
From:
Patrick Gannon [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:24
PM
To: (LNG-DAY)
Cc: ;
Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron
comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of
Directors.
Don,
Thank you for your
comments. I am providing answers to your questions in-line
below.
--
Patrick
Gannon
From:
(LNG-DAY)
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:45
AM
To: '';
Cc: (LNG-DAY)
Subject: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron
comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of
Directors.
Importance:
High
Here are my
comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of
Directors. I am preparing these comments as an individual Member
Section member and as former member and initial chair of the Member
Section Steering Committee. I do not speak for the Member Section
Steering Committee.
I will use as my
citation method the line numbers provided for that purpose. (Thank
you)
·
Paragraph
beginning line 45 -- in my correct in reading a limitation on the actions
of the steering committee where the rules of procedure are mute to on the
topic?
<PG>Not
necessarily. Section 1.5 (Line 169-194) defines the prescribed activities
of the Steering Committee; also Section 1.2(h) defines that the RoP may
specify "Other Provisions" as part of the RoP, which are still subject to
Board approval.
·
List item
beginning line 173 -- this wording could be construed as a requirement to
approve any Technical Committee which requests membership and meets the
requirements set forth TC membership in the member section. I hope
this is not the case. For example if a technical committee was
defined whose purpose was onerous to the majority of the member section
and the requirement for their addition may cause the collapse of the
member section. We always must remember that technical committees
are affiliations of volunteers. It must also be noted for example
that the adoption of standards often is significantly influenced by
external organizations. If those adoption relationships are
compromised by adding inappropriate technical committees to a Member
Section it could have a significant negative impact on adoption. We
have to remember that a member section is a community and lives within a
community and the goals and constraints of that community effect the
creation and adoption of standards.
<PG> That
should be interpreted to mean that the Steering Committee *must* at least
vote on whether to approve or not approve the affiliation of any
TC. See Section 4.4 & 4.5 (Line 293-300) wherein the details of
how the Steering Committee votes and it takes a two-thirds special
majority in order to approve a TC becoming affiliated with the MS. I
will request to change in line 173 to substitute "approve" with "vote
on".
·
List item
beginning at line 59 -- I kind of thing we've missed a major point.
What is the purpose of the Member Sections? The purpose of Member
Sections used to support the work of technical committees. These
committees may exist or not exist at a certain point in time, but, the
bottom line goal is to support the technical committee or committees
individually or as a group. It may be in the form of funding.
It may be in the form of coordination. It may be in the form of
public relations. You can imply what I've said from the two items
listed, but I think the concept of support must be first and foremost and
in clear language.
<PG> If
we added the following item in that section; does this appear to be
sufficient?
c ) A
Member Section may be created to support one or
more OASIS Technical Committees through coordination or funding
of support activities.
·
Paragraph
beginning line 262 -- I believe it would be a good idea to provide for a
co chair structure which may be a good idea for Member Sections that are
public-sector private-sector partnerships. We have not chosen to go
that route with the steering committee but some future Member Section may
want that option. It is likely also a good idea to note that the
group may elect secretaries and treasurers or other elected roles to
facilitate the work of the committee.
<PG> When
you have a steering committee, we have found it best to have a Chair. You
can certainly designate a Vice Chair (as does the OASIS Board) to step in
when the Chair is unable to Chair; but I don't think we will find much
support for a "Co-Chair" of the Steering Committee. I don't see any
restriction against the Steering Committee electing other roles, whether
or not they are specified in the MS RoP.
·
Provision 4.4 at
line 293 -- wording similar to this man cover my concern raised at line
173
<PG> yes,
see my reference above.
Regards,
Don
Donald L.
Bergeron
Systems
Designer
LexisNexis
O
937-865-1276
H
937-748-2775
M
937-672-7781
