Title: Message
Rand's
approach sounds sensible.
It is
obviously very important for people when voting to be clear on precisely what
the proposed resolution is - especially if the original proposal (from the
champion) has been the subject of discussion and attempted friendly amendment. I
would expect to put a "Proposed resolution" entry in the issues list, either
containing the proposal or pointing to the message that contains it, and change
that to "Resolution" if it passed. However, the issues list is an evolving
document and only gets uploaded (and thus publically archived) once a week so
that shouldn't be the authoritative reference. However, a kavi ballot is
archived (and can include reference links to other items (including archived
emails ??)) so using the web ballot would seem to provide the necessary
record. For votes during meetings, I'm sure the chair (and the members,
from experience :-) wll ensure clarity. Highly amended resolutions will probably
benefit from a resubmission to avoid people have to chase through
links.
Hmm
- ballots have an identifiable url, so the issues list can
have
Resolution: (approved in this web
ballot)
which
might or might not include the date or title.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Rand
Anderson [mailto:]
Sent: 24 September 2003
03:45
To: 'Diane Jordan'; bpel rqmts
Cc: Danny van der
Rijn
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-reqts] BPEL TC issues coordination call Sept
24 11am eastern
Hi
all,
Re
the first issue:
My
thought would be that the issue champion would be positioned to have this
sense of when his/her issue has sufficient consensus around a proposed
solution. At the next TC meeting, the champion would make a motion to adopt
the proposed solution. (Of course any voting TC member is allowed to make such
motions, it just makes sense for the straightforward issues to expect the
champion to make the motion - provides some catharsis for the champion if
nothing else ;).
Then, as with any motion, discussion, if appropriate, could ensue. When
a call for a vote is made, just have the standard procedure be for the
vote to be done by web ballot. In this way, the motion gets recorded clearly
in the minutes, but the meeting does not get bogged down in the inefficiencies
of voting on teleconferences. (Of course, if the meeting is a F2F, the vote
could be taken then and there). In the following meeting, I presume
there would be a section under Old Business in which the results of web ballot
votes processed since the last TC meeting would be briefly reviewed; again,
this effects the recording of the decisions into the
minutes.
This seems to me like a good balance between efficiency and sufficient
formality so as to leave a clear succinct record of decisions
made.
HTH,
Rand
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Jordan
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 10:25
PM
To: bpel rqmts
Cc: Danny van der
Rijn
Subject: [wsbpel-reqts] BPEL TC issues coordination call Sept
24 11am eastern
Hi,
This is just a reminder
of our regular call tomorrow at 11 am eastern, 8am pacific, 5pm Germany.
Call in is: 877-988-8393, int'l
203 566-8013, pc 484868.
I have
two items for discussion:
- what is the
best approach for voting on issues that have a proposed solution that has
been discussed and apparently agreed to by many (ie, several from the f2f).
The options are web ballot or review and voting on the TC call.
I favor the former, but would like to get input. Danny, I added
you to copy as you you expressed an opinion on this last week - if you can't
join us, send your views by email please.
- which issues to discuss at next week's TC call.
Let us know if you have more.
Thanks.
Regards, Diane
IBM Dynamic
e-business Technologies
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221,
Mobile: 919-624-5123
