Re: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

Yes, that's what I thought. I'll update the minutes to make it explicit.

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
To: "'Mark Little'" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "'Pete Wenzel'"
<pete@seebeyond.com>
Cc: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference


> It wasn't said explicitly because it was assumed. The intention  started
of
> as allowing electronic voting in addition to normal voting,  not to
replace
> normal votes. During the discussion it got refined to only allowing kavi
> ballots, but not at the expense of normal  voting!
>
> Martin.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 2:11 AM
> > To: Pete Wenzel
> > Cc: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference
> >
> >
> > Pete, I think that there was an implied notion of allowing
> > votes in meetings, but unless I missed it (entirely possible
> > in that particular
> > discussion) it wasn't said explicitly. If someone has a more
> > accurate recollection then let me know.
> >
> > One solution would be to replace "route" with "electronic
> > route" in the minutes, to make explicit what was implicit.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > ----
> > Mark Little,
> > Chief Architect, Transactions,
> > Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
> >
> www.arjuna.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Wenzel" <pete@seebeyond.com>
> To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
> Cc: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [ws-caf] minutes of the first teleconference
>
>
> > > ...
> > <1> Jeff (Mischinsky) objected to email ballots and proposals of
> > motions
> > > by email. Martin agreed.
> > >
> > <2> Eric then asked for clarification of exactly what the new motion
> > > should be, to which Jeff responded that Kavi should be the only
> > > route for voting within the TC.
> > >
> > > Pete (Wenzel?) seconded the motion.
> > >
> > > Eric asked if there was any further discussion or objections.
> > > Hearing none, the motion was carried.
> >
> > Seems like something is slightly amiss here, unless my memory is
> > failing.  I agree with <1> above, but think <2> may not be correct.
> >
> > If the restated motion is correct as recorded, we would be unable to
> > vote during meetings, and every little decision would be delayed for a
> > week.  My opinion is that at the chairs' discretion, a voice vote
> > during a meeting may be deemed appropriate for some matters, while the
> > Kavi route could be chosen for decisions that require further thought
> > or additional participation.  But definitely the intent was to
> > disallow email voting.
> >
> > --Pete
> > Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com>
> > Senior Architect, SeeBeyond
> > Standards & Product Strategy
> > +1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific)
> >
>
>
>