John,
I'm inclined to say this whole question is moot.
Even the most resource flush companies - find it hard to justify
having more than 3 or 4 people on the same committee!
In practice budget and project resource issues, deadlines and
deliverables are the biggest restriction here.
Unless someone can really show where this has
been consistently abused - I personally cannot remember any company
(even the really big ones) having more than about 3 or 4 people
on a committee for an extended period of time. They quickly
remove the non-essential persons and re-assign them.
If the BOD did find that an OASIS TC had been
"stacked" - they have an opportunity to refer the standard
approval back before it becomes finally approved - and ask for input
from more members / contributors - and / or OASIS voting members
themselves can also decide not to approve the specification if they
feel its not representative enough.
DW
-------- Original Message
--------
Subject: Re: [oasis-member-discuss] Fw: [chairs] Possible
change to TC
voting rules - input requested
From: John Borras
<>
Date: Mon, October 23, 2006 11:39
am
To: Frederick Hirsch <>
Cc:
Hi Frederick.
My thinking was if there are currently say 5 people from the
same organisation on a TC and they all can vote them they will
probably all contribute fully. Restricting that org to one vote
might mean 2, 3 or 4 of them might become inactive thus reducing
participation. If the org was restricted to say max 3
members who can all vote then there's a strong chance you would
keep a higher level of active participation from that
org. All ifs and buts and maybes I appreciate but possibly
IMHO a better chance of keeping good participation.
Clearer?
Regards
John
M. +44 (0)7976 157745
----- Original Message ----
From: Frederick Hirsch
<>
To: ext John Borras
<>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch
<>;
Sent: Monday, 23 October,
2006 4:08:28 PM
Subject: Re: [oasis-member-discuss] Fw: [chairs]
Possible change to TC voting rules - input requested
John
Thanks for your note.
Is not restricting
participation level more restrictive than
restricting
voting, and more likely to potentially reduce involvement?
I'm
not quite sure how this suggestion addresses your concern
about
reducing participation.
Perhaps I
misunderstood your comment, hence my reply.
regards,
Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Oct 23, 2006,
at 4:01 AM, ext John Borras wrote:
> This is a difficult one
and I can see the arguments on both sides.
> My main
concern would be the effct that reducing voting power
would
> have on participation. That's
often hard enough as it is. So on
>
balance I would say leave things as they are.
>
> Perhaps
the way to stop large organisations dominating TCs
and
> votes would be to restrict the number of active
members, and hence
> votes, they can have on a
TC? This would have the added effect of
>
them not dominating the debates within TCs which can be equally
a
> problem as dominating voting.
>
>
Regards
> John
> M. +44 (0)7976
157745
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
>
From: Jeff Mischkinsky <>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 20 October, 2006
11:21:06 PM
> Subject: [chairs] Possible change to TC voting
rules - input requested
>
> Dear
Chairs,
> Please look at the following
message about a possible change to
> TC voting
rules:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oasis-member-discuss/
>
email/archives/200610/msg00000.html
>
> and
if you are so inclined please respond as requested to oasis-
>
>
> PLEASE do not
respond on this -- the chairs
list.
>
> thanks,
>
jeff
> --
> Jeff
Mischkinsky
>
> Director, Web Services
Standards +1(650)506-1975
>
Consulting Member Technical
Staff 500
Oracle Parkway, M/S
> 4OP9
> Oracle
>
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>
>
> All New Yahoo! Mail
– Tired of Vi@gr@! come-ons? Let our
SpamGuard
> protect
you.
Send instant messages to your
online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
