Excuse me.
I got confused by the terms [again]
What we opted for was RF On Limited
Please initiate the Transfer Approval process.
I will not explain what twisted my mind around, because it would only
lead others astray.
-----Original Message-----
From: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:08 AM
To: ; James Bryce Clark
Cc: ; ;
Subject: [obix] RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
Good - then under the TC Process, and using only voting members, the TC,
with a quorum of voting members, and with no abstentions or dissensions,
has approved a transition of the IP of the oBIX TC to RF under RAND on
Tuesday May 16 and is submitting a Transition Request to operate under
the RF under RAND.
Please initiate an OASIS IP Transition Approval ballot for oBIX.
Toby Considine
oBIX Co-Chair
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:40 AM
To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office); 'James Bryce Clark';
Cc: ;
Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
Hi Toby,
Only Voting members count towards quorum - it sounds like there might
be something wrong with oBIX's Kavi setup. Thankfully Kavi doesn't make
the rules - the TC process does.
Regards,
Mary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:26 AM
> To: James Bryce Clark;
> Cc: ;
> Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
>
> While most of the voting members were in attendance, we did nit have a
> quorum of the members (which is what KAVI wants).
>
> This leaves a process question. Everyone has agreed in numerous
> meetings (but without roll called). The primary contributor has not
> only declared himself in violent agreement, but has put up an
> implementation on SourceForge...
>
> So does that mean I now must create a sense of committee vote? It
> seems odd to vote based on a quorum of members that has no
> relationship to the voting members...100% of the voting members is
> still not a quorum by KAVI standards...
>
> tc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:58 PM
> To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office);
>
> Cc: ;
> Subject: RE: FW: oBIX IP vote...
>
> Let me toss in a few comments, inserted below.
> Apologies to Toby:
> We
> obviously aren't doing a good enough job of clearly conveying what's
> in the
> IPR transition policy and its FAQ. (URIs both cited below.)
> It seems like you *may* already HAVE completed a Transition
> Request
>
> Ballot, but I have to rely on Toby to reach and Mary to confirm that
> conclusion. See below.
> Regards Jamie
>
> At 09:14 AM 5/23/2006, Considine, Toby \(Facilities Technology
> Office\)
> wrote:
> >OK, I will put the roll of the last meeting up tonight (it was a
> face2face
> >at a conference and my notes are at home) I will then launch a
> >Transition Request Ballot to be completed by the
> end
> >of the week (a lot of our members are traveling constantly).
> Does this
> >need any special format or wording? We will then submit a
> Transition
> >Request to Mary and wait for things to cook...
>
> I was at that F2F meeting last week. I did not count heads, and
> walked in after it started, but I *thought* it was a quorate
> meeting. Here is how I reached that facial-level guess. (1) There
> were a
> lot of people there. (2) Toby knows who's really a member, and may
> already have been able to calculate the then-current number of voting
> members, taking into account the deadwood, even if the roster had not
> yet been updated to reflect that.
> (3) For example if there really were 9 voting members as of that date,
> quorum would be 5, and if 5 people showed up at a duly called meeting,
> only "a majority of the votes cast ...as per regular TC voting
> procedure" would be needed for a Transition Request Ballot, i.,e., a
> simple majority, so in my example, at least 3 of the 5 voting yes by a
> voice vote at the meeting.
> If Toby wants help cleaning up his roster on the database to
> reflect the current correct membership, I would be happy to provide
> it, because I am his TC staff contact.
> Let me know.
> I respectfully suggest that, if he advises us that the actual
> numbers for quorum did pan out, then the Transition Request Ballot HAS
> occurred,
>
> and all Mary may need now is confirmation. That is, a note from Toby,
> cc'd to the TC list, confirming that a majority voted formally to
> approve the
>
> mode transition at the duly called meeting. And then, Mayr can start
> the second-stage ballot, and yes, as usual, he should follow up with
> posted minutes.
> However, please note: you will need to be absolutely certain in
> the notice & minutes *which* OASIS policy IPR Mode was selected. I do
> not want to put words in the TC's mouth.
> What is "most restrictive" depends on whether you're looking at it
> from the licensor or licensee side. The mode that Toby and I
> discussed *prior* to the meeting as creating the strongest license
> obligation, and thus leaving less freedom to the parties obligated to
> issue license, was "RF on Limited Terms".
>
> >Special question, if all votes are in in a week, do we still need to
> wait
> >30 days?
> >tc
> >
> >>From: Mary McRae [mailto:]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:41 AM
> >>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> >>Cc: ; ; Paul
> >>Ehrlich; James Bryce Clark
> >>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> >>
> >>Hi Toby,
> >>
> >> Sorry for any confusion I've caused! Here's a link to
> the actual
> >>Transition Policy and FAQs - maybe that will help a bit.
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_transition_policy.php
> >>http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/transition_faq.php
> >>
> >>Here's sections 3 and 5 from the Transition section (3) of
> the policy:
> >>
> >>3. Once a TC has reached the 50% threshold, it may conduct
> a vote to
> >>submit a Transition Request to operate under the new IPR
> Policy. The
> >>Transition Request must specify one of the IPR Modes under
> the new IPR
>
> >>Policy as the one under which the TC wishes to operate, and must be
> >>approved by a majority of the votes cast by the TC Voting
> Members (as
> per
> >>regular TC voting procedure) before it can be sent to the TC
> Administrator.
> >>
> >>5. Each Transition Approval Ballot must be preceded by a Transition
> >>Request Ballot. There is no limit (other than the time
> limit specified
>
> >>below in 3.10) to the number of Transition Request and Transition
> >>Approval Ballots that a TC may conduct until a Transition Approval
> Ballot
> >>succeeds.
> >>
> >>So what I'm after is evidence of Item 3 above, before I can
> start item
> 5
> >>above. For each meeting held, someone should be taking minutes, and
> those
> >>minutes should be posted to the OASIS site, either as a document, as
> the
> >>text of an email message, or in the calendar minutes.
> That's the link
> I'm
> >>looking for. But you also mention that the TC tends not to achieve
> quorum
> >>in meetings, which calls into question whether or not a majority of
> the
> >>TC Voting Members have actually agreed.
> >>In looking at the TC Roster, I see a total of 15 voting members. But
> when
> >>I look at the attendance records, some of these individuals haven't
> >>apparently attended a meeting since 2004 which indicates that they
> should
> >>no longer hold voting privileges and be switched to "member." You
> don't
> >>want to base your quorum on people that should no longer be
> considered
>
> >>voting members so I think a roster clean-up is in order and should
> >>probably be the first task undertaken. The easiest way to do this is
> to
> >>look at the minutes for the last 3 meetings and see who
> attended. If
> >>someone's name appears twice, they're voting. If their name only
> appears
> >>once in either meeting #1 or meeting #3 they're demoted to
> member. If
> >>they attended meeting #2, you'll need to go back one more to see if
> they
> >>attended that meeting. If yes, they retain voting rights, if no,
> they're
> >>demoted to member.
> >>Mary
> >>
> >>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> >>>No, not at all.
> >>> The Committee has had full and complete running
> agreement over a
> >>>number of months. This has included phone calls and meetings at
> which
> >>> OASIS staff were present, and outlined the IP states. Two
> weeks ago
> the
> >>> process was described in San Francisco, and it included clear
> direction
> >>> that the vote could only be run by OASIS staff. Last week
> Jamie sat
> in
> >>> on on our face-to-face in which our intention to move the
> the least
> >>>restrictive IP policy available was confirmed again. I
> asked Jamie
> >>>directly "Good - we are all in agreement; how do we make
> the change
> >>>official" He indicated that speaking to him would start the ball
> >>>rolling. and (I thought) that we would start last week.
> >>>This week I reminded him, and he suggest I talk to you. See below.
> >>>Because you requested an artifact, or minutes pointing the
> decision,
> I
> >>>then asked you how you would like the vote done (as clear repeated
> >>>statements of intent and multiple
> conversations/indications from the
> >>>chairs are not enough. I asked because I wanted the
> "artifact" to be
> of
> >>>a form to meet *your* stated need.
> >>>You have now, apparently, taken this as an indication that no
> >>>conversation has been had yet. I can see why not so many
> TCs have yet
>
> >>>converted...
> >>>Let me summarize:
> >>>- The TC has had multiple conversations on IP, many with
> OASIS staff
> present
> >>>- It is the clear intent of the TC to convert before the document
> >>>currently being prepared for Public Review becomes a standard.
> >>>- We have not voted only because OASIS has indicated that
> only OASIS
> may
> >>>run an IP conversion vote.
> >>>- We are waiting for clear direction on how to get the conversion
> begun
> >>>ASAP.
> >>>thanks tc
> >>>
> >>>>From: Mary McRae [mailto:]
> >>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:53 AM
> >>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> >>>>Cc: ; James Bryce Clark
> >>>>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> >>>>
> >>>>Hi Toby, So are you saying that the TC hasn't yet voted? I would
> then
> >>>>open up a discussion on the TC email list to see what
> everyone feels
>
> >>>>they can agree to; once you have consensus via email you
> can start a
>
> >>>>Kavi ballot for that particular mode. Mary
> >>>>
> >>>>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> >>>>>As we rarely get an actual quorum at a meeting, all of our votes
> are
> >>>>>in Kavi.
> >>>>>Does the vote need to be of the form "3 Modes, pick one"
> or can it
> be
> >>>>>of the form "Shall we change to Free RAND, Y/N"? tc
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>From: Mary McRae [mailto:]
> >>>>>>Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:42 PM
> >>>>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> >>>>>>Cc: ;
> >>>>>>Subject: Re: FW: oBIX IP vote...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Hi Toby,
> >>>>>> In order to begin the process the TC first holds a vote
> regarding
> >>>>>> the specific mode they wish to adopt. The Transition
> Request must
>
> >>>>>> specify one of the IPR Modes under the new IPR Policy
> as the one
> >>>>>> under which the TC wishes to operate, and must be
> approved by a
> >>>>>> majority of the votes cast by the TC Voting Members (as per
> regular
> >>>>>> TC voting procedure) before it can be sent to the TC
> Administrator.
> >>>>>>Please send me a link to the meeting minutes where the vote is
> >>>>>>recorded so I can begin the 30-day counter and determine the
> actual
> >>>>>>voting representatives.
> >>>>>>Thanks, and it was great to finally get to meet you in SF!!
> >>>>>>All the best,
> >>>>>>Mary
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office) wrote:
> >>>>>>>Mary, oBIX would like to launch a conversion vote on IP to the
> least
> >>>>>>>restrictive variety, which, if I am not mistaken is
> the RF-RAND
> >>>>>>>Can you please assist...
> >>>>>>>tc
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:]
> >>>>>>>>Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:40 PM
> >>>>>>>>To: Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)
> >>>>>>>>Cc:
> >>>>>>>>Subject: Re: oBIX IP vote...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Toby: Sort of, yes. Could you send a pointer for the
> >>>>>>>> statement, message or minutes that say "we voted to start a
> ballot
> >>>>>>>> to transition to RF on Limited" to Mary McRae
> (copied here) &
> >>>>>>>> I? She will launch ballot but we need an artifact to do it
> >>>>>>>> with. Apologies if I have missed one.
> >>>>>>>> Delighted to see your team last week, and the strong
> industry
> >>>>>>>> opportunities there. More to follow up on once
> we're both back
>
> >>>>>>>> home. Regards Jamie
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>At 11:42 AM 5/22/2006, Considine, Toby \(Facilities Technology
> >>>>>>>>Office\) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>My troops are getting restless - we-d like to get this out of
> the
> >>>>>>>>>way...
> >>>>>>>>>Are you waiting on me?
> >>>>>>>>>tc
>
