I too see the problem. As other mentioned earlier, I think
the requirement of a broader OASIS membership voting exists primarily
to ensure high quality of OASIS standards. However in reality
most companies would have a policy of 'don't vote if you don't
care' which would immediately put the chair(s) of
the not-so-popular specs in a disadvantageous position and their only
resort may be to seek favors from unrelated OASIS membership to cast
their (meaningless) votes. Not a good situation.
So I guess there is a problem and we may all want to fix
it. However any solution we come up with should also meet the
original goal of ensuring high quality OASIS standards.
I like the idea of setting up domains but I would also
suggest to raise the bar higher in setting up a domain (by requiring certain
minimum membership, a review and approval of OASIS membership/TAB/Board, etc).
Basically so that the process does not get easily abused. Another point in the
process where the quality bar can be raised higher is by requiring TCs to
produce material related to compliance testing and by requiring certain
interoperability testing to occur (as opposed to merely a certification of use
by three member companies).
Thanks,
Sanjay Patil
Co-chair, Web Services Reliable Exchange (WS-RX)
TC.
From: Bohren, Jeffrey
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, Sep 29, 2005 10:26
AM
To:
Subject: RE: [chairs]
OASIS Organizational Voting is Somewhat Absurd?
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
