At 02:47 PM 6/7/01 -0700, Jeff Hodges wrote:
>It seems to be kinda a trade-off of the sorts of "what sort of headache do you
>want to have" -- you can follow the oasis/roberts rules and figure out how to
>have a Vice Chair and what the duties/resposibilities/power of that position
>are, or simply (within the TC) adopt a standing rule that we're going to
>have a
>co-chair arrangement where duties/resposibilities/power within the TC are
>shared
>equally. Perhaps one of those people would have to be identified as the
>"chair"
>as far as interfacing with OASIS proper is concerned, tho this is a little
>unclear given what Jon Bosak said..
I talked with Jeff H. yesterday about this, and he pretty much convinced me
that there's no explicit prohibition against having a co-chair arrangement
in the rules. So if people are amenable, we could adopt a standing rule
that goes something like this:
"The SSTC shall allow for election of up to two TC chairs who share
chairing responsibilities as they see fit. In this case, one of the two
co-chairs shall take primary responsibility for communicating with OASIS
staff."
> > >As far as we know, there is nothing that would prevent a TC from
> > >adopting a standing rule that would define a co-chair role and
> > >would allow one or more members of the TC to be so designated.
>
>However we decide to do it (co-Chairs or Chair'n'viceChair), it occurs to
>me we
>should create a new distribution list called e.g...
>
>
>
>..and place the co-Chairs or Chair'n'viceChair on it. Folks'd use that list to
>send msgs to the SSTC "chair".
We could do this, but it feels a little like overkill... I don't want to
belabor the point, but I've been in various groups with co-chairs, and we
didn't go this far.
Eve
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Development eve.maler @ east.sun.com
