First, I agree the process is flawed. It
is going to get exponentially worse as OASIS grows (# new TCs times the # new
organizations).
Let me make a suggestion that is similar
to Rob’s.
1)
OASIS would establish a
set of domains.
2)
Each OASIS member
organization would elect to participate in N number of domains.
3)
Each TC could chose to
submit specs to a specific domain or OASIS at large. If a TC submits the spec for
“domain approval”, the vote threshold should be higher since it is
a more focus group.
If you want a good first cut at the list
of domains, go to the OASIS home page and look at the “Committees by
Category” box.
Some specs really should be approved by
OASIS at large because they are very general. For example if there is a new
version of UDDI, I would see that as being an OASIS wide vote. The vast
majority of specs, however, should be voted on by a subset of organizations.
Jeff Bohren
BMC
-----Original Message-----
From: Duane Nickull
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday,
September 29, 2005 12:53 PM
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
