One approach:
Minimum percentage of approving votes
required from the voters who belong to topically-related
groups. Maybe a higher percentage than the 10% or 15% currently in
effect, since those voting would have a higher level of interest in the
specification at hand. This could increase the probability that the spec
proposal is actually reviewed by people qualified and interested in reviewing
it.
Some kind of "veto power" by any of the regularly
voting members. A "no" vote from any of the regular broad pool of
voters might trigger a higher level of acceptance required by the
topically-related votes.
We certainly want to avoid OASIS rubberstamping
randomly-generated specifications, akin to what occurred
here:
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/04/13/1723206.shtml?tid=133&tid=146&tid=14
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/lingua_franca_v4/lingua_franca_v4.html
Seraphim Larsen
DITA TC secretary
___________________________________________________________
Seraphim
Larsen
CIG Operations / TPPE
Senior Technical
Writer
Intel Corporation
(480)
552-6504
Chandler, AZ
The content of this
message is my personal opinion only.
Although I am an employee of Intel, the
statements I make
here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor
am I authorized to
speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.
___________________________________________________________
From: Duane Nickull [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 9:53 AM
To: Wachob,
Gabe;
Subject: RE: [chairs] OASIS
Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?
“Does anyone
else feel this way?”
I agree that it may be
suboptimal. Do you have any concrete plans or suggestions for our
perusal? While voting to approve something you haven’t read is a
relatively hollow gesture, it has to be balanced against the other end of the
spectrum whereby a group of three members could get together, have a FUDfest and
create some meaningless specification and get it approved as an OASIS
standard. This lack of scrutiny by all of us weakens the perception and
credibility of OASIS as a credible standards development
organization.
I would be interested
in hearing concrete proposals and am open to considering a new model if others
are keen too.
Duane
