Re: AW: [autorepair] Materials from Meeting on 18-10-02

Klaus:
> 1.	How could this happen in the first place?
> 2.	How are valid counts in the voting process evaluated?
> 3.	Are the spam mails counted in the voting? If not describe our
> process in order to receive "clean" voting.
> 4.	Do members have to expect additional spam mails in their postboxes
> due to participation in the votings?
Most OASIS lists allow only subscribers to post messages. In this case  the list is configured as an open mailbox to allow anyone to send a  ballot. After the ballots are received they are matched against a list  of eligible voters before the votes are counted.  In one sense the existence of the spam is evidence that we have accepted  all submitted messages (or ballots). I had thought about removing the  spam messages from the archive but that would leave the remaining  ballots with breaks in the numerical sequence, so the existance of the  spam messages is proof that we have no tampered with the ballots.  Spam is, unfortunately, a fact of life these days. We go to great  lengths to keep our list archives free from spam, but must balance this  with some level of convenience for our members. For example, we do not  have the resources to moderate our more than 175 mail lists to keep the  spam out. Instead, we require (for most lists) that only subscribers can  post. But some lists must necessarily remain open.  Of course the spam messages do not count against the vote tally as these  are not ballots.
> 5.	How do you make sure, that member profil data, including
> email-addresses are safe? Or do we already know the answer and 	should read
> the general terms and conditions again?
There is no way to protect our archives from spiders and crawlers  looking for email addresses as long as our mail list archives are open  to the public. The only way around this is to have closed archives,  which would require a change in OASIS' open process philosophy. So  again, this is proof our our openness and that nothing we do is hidden  from public scrutiny.
> 6.	Do we have to asume that this actual status coralates to the quality
> of service and standards of OASIS?
I'm not sure what you're asking -- or implying.
> 7.	Without wanting to down-grading the work of any active TC-members,
> we have to question the technical quality of the 	standards. Or in
> other words, are you aware of possible outcomes of de jure standards,
> resulting in additional hugh 	invests for specific industries, forced to
> adaped to these so called standards? >
> Dear Mr. Best, it is our strong belive that by paying our member fees, we
> can expect a substantially and far more better service quality. >
> Please give us and all participating members detailed information and
> feedback to our questions and in particular how you plan to avoid these
> problems in the future. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Would you please make specific suggestions for how we can improve the  quality of the service we provide to our members? I'd also like to hear  how having a few spam messages in the archives of our balloting has hurt  your company.  -Karl
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen >
> Klaus Kerth >
> Volkswagen AG
> Postfach 1941/1
> Head of Volkswagen Service Information and Documentation Management
> worldwide
> D-38436 Wolfsburg >
> Fon +49-5361-9-23671
> eFax +49-5361-9-5723671
>  mailto:  >  >  >

----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl > >  >
--

=================================================================

Karl F. Best Vice President, OASIS +1 978.667.5115 x206 
http://www.oasis-open.org