LegalXML MS Steering Committee

 View Only
  • 1.  Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    Posted 01-12-2007 13:45
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Here are my comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.  I am preparing these comments as an individual Member Section member and as former member and initial chair of the Member Section Steering Committee.  I do not speak for the Member Section Steering Committee.

    I will use as my citation method the line numbers provided for that purpose.  (Thank you)

    ·         Paragraph beginning line 45 -- in my correct in reading a limitation on the actions of the steering committee where the rules of procedure are mute to on the topic?

    ·         List item beginning line 173 -- this wording could be construed as a requirement to approve any Technical Committee which requests membership and meets the requirements set forth TC membership in the member section.  I hope this is not the case.  For example if a technical committee was defined whose purpose was onerous to the majority of the member section and the requirement for their addition may cause the collapse of the member section.  We always must remember that technical committees are affiliations of volunteers.  It must also be noted for example that the adoption of standards often is significantly influenced by external organizations.  If those adoption relationships are compromised by adding inappropriate technical committees to a Member Section it could have a significant negative impact on adoption.  We have to remember that a member section is a community and lives within a community and the goals and constraints of that community effect the creation and adoption of standards.

    ·         List item beginning at line 59 -- I kind of thing we've missed a major point.  What is the purpose of the Member Sections?  The purpose of Member Sections used to support the work of technical committees.  These committees may exist or not exist at a certain point in time, but, the bottom line goal is to support the technical committee or committees individually or as a group.  It may be in the form of funding.  It may be in the form of coordination.  It may be in the form of public relations.  You can imply what I've said from the two items listed, but I think the concept of support must be first and foremost and in clear language.

    ·         Paragraph beginning line 262 -- I believe it would be a good idea to provide for a co chair structure which may be a good idea for Member Sections that are public-sector private-sector partnerships.  We have not chosen to go that route with the steering committee but some future Member Section may want that option.  It is likely also a good idea to note that the group may elect secretaries and treasurers or other elected roles to facilitate the work of the committee.

    ·         Provision 4.4 at line 293 -- wording similar to this man cover my concern raised at line 173

    Regards,

    Don

    Donald L. Bergeron
    Systems Designer
    LexisNexis
    donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
    O 937-865-1276
    H 937-748-2775
    M 937-672-7781



  • 2.  RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    Posted 01-15-2007 23:25
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Don,
     
    Thank you for your comments.  I am providing answers to your questions in-line below.

    --

    Patrick Gannon

     


    From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
    Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:45 AM
    To: 'patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org'; legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org
    Cc: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
    Subject: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.
    Importance: High

    Here are my comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.  I am preparing these comments as an individual Member Section member and as former member and initial chair of the Member Section Steering Committee.  I do not speak for the Member Section Steering Committee.

    I will use as my citation method the line numbers provided for that purpose.  (Thank you)

    ·         Paragraph beginning line 45 -- in my correct in reading a limitation on the actions of the steering committee where the rules of procedure are mute to on the topic? 

     

    <PG>Not necessarily. Section 1.5 (Line 169-194) defines the prescribed activities of the Steering Committee; also Section 1.2(h) defines that the RoP may specify "Other Provisions" as part of the RoP, which are still subject to Board approval.

     

     

    ·         List item beginning line 173 -- this wording could be construed as a requirement to approve any Technical Committee which requests membership and meets the requirements set forth TC membership in the member section.  I hope this is not the case.  For example if a technical committee was defined whose purpose was onerous to the majority of the member section and the requirement for their addition may cause the collapse of the member section.  We always must remember that technical committees are affiliations of volunteers.  It must also be noted for example that the adoption of standards often is significantly influenced by external organizations.  If those adoption relationships are compromised by adding inappropriate technical committees to a Member Section it could have a significant negative impact on adoption.  We have to remember that a member section is a community and lives within a community and the goals and constraints of that community effect the creation and adoption of standards. 

     

    <PG> That should be interpreted to mean that the Steering Committee *must* at least vote on whether to approve or not approve the affiliation of any TC.  See Section 4.4 & 4.5 (Line 293-300) wherein the details of how the Steering Committee votes and it takes a two-thirds special majority in order to approve a TC becoming affiliated with the MS.  I will request to change in line 173 to substitute "approve" with "vote on".

     

    ·         List item beginning at line 59 -- I kind of thing we've missed a major point.  What is the purpose of the Member Sections?  The purpose of Member Sections used to support the work of technical committees.  These committees may exist or not exist at a certain point in time, but, the bottom line goal is to support the technical committee or committees individually or as a group.  It may be in the form of funding.  It may be in the form of coordination.  It may be in the form of public relations.  You can imply what I've said from the two items listed, but I think the concept of support must be first and foremost and in clear language. 

     

    <PG> If we added the following item in that section; does this appear to be sufficient?

     

     c ) A Member Section may be created to support one or more OASIS Technical Committees through coordination or funding of support activities.

     

     

    ·         Paragraph beginning line 262 -- I believe it would be a good idea to provide for a co chair structure which may be a good idea for Member Sections that are public-sector private-sector partnerships.  We have not chosen to go that route with the steering committee but some future Member Section may want that option.  It is likely also a good idea to note that the group may elect secretaries and treasurers or other elected roles to facilitate the work of the committee. 

     

    <PG> When you have a steering committee, we have found it best to have a Chair. You can certainly designate a Vice Chair (as does the OASIS Board) to step in when the Chair is unable to Chair; but I don't think we will find much support for a "Co-Chair" of  the Steering Committee. I don't see any restriction against the Steering Committee electing other roles, whether or not they are specified in the MS RoP.

     

    ·         Provision 4.4 at line 293 -- wording similar to this man cover my concern raised at line 173 

     

    <PG> yes, see my reference above. 

    Regards,

    Don

    Donald L. Bergeron
    Systems Designer
    LexisNexis
    donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
    O 937-865-1276
    H 937-748-2775
    M 937-672-7781



  • 3.  RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    Posted 01-15-2007 23:25
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Don,
     
    Thank you for your comments.  I am providing answers to your questions in-line below.

    --

    Patrick Gannon

     


    From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
    Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:45 AM
    To: 'patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org'; legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org
    Cc: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
    Subject: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.
    Importance: High

    Here are my comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.  I am preparing these comments as an individual Member Section member and as former member and initial chair of the Member Section Steering Committee.  I do not speak for the Member Section Steering Committee.

    I will use as my citation method the line numbers provided for that purpose.  (Thank you)

    ·         Paragraph beginning line 45 -- in my correct in reading a limitation on the actions of the steering committee where the rules of procedure are mute to on the topic? 

     

    <PG>Not necessarily. Section 1.5 (Line 169-194) defines the prescribed activities of the Steering Committee; also Section 1.2(h) defines that the RoP may specify "Other Provisions" as part of the RoP, which are still subject to Board approval.

     

     

    ·         List item beginning line 173 -- this wording could be construed as a requirement to approve any Technical Committee which requests membership and meets the requirements set forth TC membership in the member section.  I hope this is not the case.  For example if a technical committee was defined whose purpose was onerous to the majority of the member section and the requirement for their addition may cause the collapse of the member section.  We always must remember that technical committees are affiliations of volunteers.  It must also be noted for example that the adoption of standards often is significantly influenced by external organizations.  If those adoption relationships are compromised by adding inappropriate technical committees to a Member Section it could have a significant negative impact on adoption.  We have to remember that a member section is a community and lives within a community and the goals and constraints of that community effect the creation and adoption of standards. 

     

    <PG> That should be interpreted to mean that the Steering Committee *must* at least vote on whether to approve or not approve the affiliation of any TC.  See Section 4.4 & 4.5 (Line 293-300) wherein the details of how the Steering Committee votes and it takes a two-thirds special majority in order to approve a TC becoming affiliated with the MS.  I will request to change in line 173 to substitute "approve" with "vote on".

     

    ·         List item beginning at line 59 -- I kind of thing we've missed a major point.  What is the purpose of the Member Sections?  The purpose of Member Sections used to support the work of technical committees.  These committees may exist or not exist at a certain point in time, but, the bottom line goal is to support the technical committee or committees individually or as a group.  It may be in the form of funding.  It may be in the form of coordination.  It may be in the form of public relations.  You can imply what I've said from the two items listed, but I think the concept of support must be first and foremost and in clear language. 

     

    <PG> If we added the following item in that section; does this appear to be sufficient?

     

     c ) A Member Section may be created to support one or more OASIS Technical Committees through coordination or funding of support activities.

     

     

    ·         Paragraph beginning line 262 -- I believe it would be a good idea to provide for a co chair structure which may be a good idea for Member Sections that are public-sector private-sector partnerships.  We have not chosen to go that route with the steering committee but some future Member Section may want that option.  It is likely also a good idea to note that the group may elect secretaries and treasurers or other elected roles to facilitate the work of the committee. 

     

    <PG> When you have a steering committee, we have found it best to have a Chair. You can certainly designate a Vice Chair (as does the OASIS Board) to step in when the Chair is unable to Chair; but I don't think we will find much support for a "Co-Chair" of  the Steering Committee. I don't see any restriction against the Steering Committee electing other roles, whether or not they are specified in the MS RoP.

     

    ·         Provision 4.4 at line 293 -- wording similar to this man cover my concern raised at line 173 

     

    <PG> yes, see my reference above. 

    Regards,

    Don

    Donald L. Bergeron
    Systems Designer
    LexisNexis
    donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
    O 937-865-1276
    H 937-748-2775
    M 937-672-7781