LegalXML MS Steering Committee

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

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

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

    Posted 01-17-2007 17:25
    
    
    
    
    
    
    


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

    Posted 01-17-2007 22:07
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Don,
     
    I do not see any harm in making the condition "and/or" on line 61.  Thanks for the clarification.  I will recommend it to read as:
    "a)   A Member Section may be created to support one or more OASIS Technical Committees through coordination and/or funding of activities."
     
    I read back through Jamie's emails and I don't find any explicit reference to suggested text for a new item "d)".  I believe that the wording of item "c)" is broad enough to encompass the conditions Jamie was describing where a MS may not have an initial TC and wants time to talk through the details of what is most meaningful for the MS members e.g. "a particular need".  The third item still reads:
    "a)   A Member Section may be created when a collection of OASIS Members recognize a particular need and are willing to commit to work on that need over an extended period. ""
     
    I replied to John G's email, and I thought my responses answered his points, and I do not see a need to make any further modifications to this new MS Policy.  Membership funds allocation is specified in the MS RoP, so no changes are needed now in the drafting and approval of this MS Policy.  We will clearly need to have dialog over the next few months while we work through the drafting of a new LegalXML MS RoP using the new RoP template (which simply is a single document template using the RoP outline found in Section 1.2 of the MS Policy).  I expect that we will copy appropriate language which defines the membership funds allocation out of the current RoP and paste it into the new RoP template.  I do not foresee any change in the 40% funding level, and we will work with the LegalXML MS to draft the new RoP so that that funding is handled accordingly.  Again the issue mentioned in the MS Policy Section 7.3 regarding withholding funds only applies if the MS grossly under spends the members funds allocated within the annual budget.  I will be glad to discuss this further on a LegalXML MS SC call.  Please coordinate with Dee when you wish to put this on your steering committee agenda.
     

    --

    Patrick Gannon

     


    From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:24 PM
    To: 'patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org'
    Cc: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org; Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
    Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    I really believe that some form of emphasis added on the word support would be helpful to get across the intent.  The phrase on the coordination and funding should be an and/or condition rather than an or condition.

    I believe that we have identified a new item D. in the e-mail thread between Jamie and I.  Having a member section created to explore an area or discipline with the eye to properly partitioning it may in the future be an extremely valuable and productive use of the member section construct.  This is especially true where in order to properly handle intellectual property considerations expansionist scope of technical committees is more problematic than it has been in the past.

    I concur on line 175.

    Have you given further thought to John’s comments?

    Regards,

    Don

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


    From: Patrick Gannon [mailto:]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:50 AM
    To: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
    Cc: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    Don,

     

    Attached is a revision of the MS Policy with the two edits I mentioned below (regarding Line 59 and Line 173 in the previous version).  Does this address the issues you raised?

     

    --

    Patrick Gannon

     


    From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:17 AM
    To: ''
    Cc: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    I agree with your replies.  However, I strongly urge you to move option C. to be option A. Within that section. The reason for this is that any member section alone does nothing.  It's preeminent purpose is to support technical committees.  If it does not do this then your other points do not matter.

    Regards,

    Don

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


    From: Patrick Gannon [mailto:]
    Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:24 PM
    To: (LNG-DAY)
    Cc: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    Don,

     

    Thank you for your comments.  I am providing answers to your questions in-line below.

    --

    Patrick Gannon

     


    From: (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
    Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:45 AM
    To: ''; legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org
    Cc: (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 01-17-2007 22:07
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Don,
     
    I do not see any harm in making the condition "and/or" on line 61.  Thanks for the clarification.  I will recommend it to read as:
    "a)   A Member Section may be created to support one or more OASIS Technical Committees through coordination and/or funding of activities."
     
    I read back through Jamie's emails and I don't find any explicit reference to suggested text for a new item "d)".  I believe that the wording of item "c)" is broad enough to encompass the conditions Jamie was describing where a MS may not have an initial TC and wants time to talk through the details of what is most meaningful for the MS members e.g. "a particular need".  The third item still reads:
    "a)   A Member Section may be created when a collection of OASIS Members recognize a particular need and are willing to commit to work on that need over an extended period. ""
     
    I replied to John G's email, and I thought my responses answered his points, and I do not see a need to make any further modifications to this new MS Policy.  Membership funds allocation is specified in the MS RoP, so no changes are needed now in the drafting and approval of this MS Policy.  We will clearly need to have dialog over the next few months while we work through the drafting of a new LegalXML MS RoP using the new RoP template (which simply is a single document template using the RoP outline found in Section 1.2 of the MS Policy).  I expect that we will copy appropriate language which defines the membership funds allocation out of the current RoP and paste it into the new RoP template.  I do not foresee any change in the 40% funding level, and we will work with the LegalXML MS to draft the new RoP so that that funding is handled accordingly.  Again the issue mentioned in the MS Policy Section 7.3 regarding withholding funds only applies if the MS grossly under spends the members funds allocated within the annual budget.  I will be glad to discuss this further on a LegalXML MS SC call.  Please coordinate with Dee when you wish to put this on your steering committee agenda.
     

    --

    Patrick Gannon

     


    From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:24 PM
    To: 'patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org'
    Cc: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org; Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
    Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    I really believe that some form of emphasis added on the word support would be helpful to get across the intent.  The phrase on the coordination and funding should be an and/or condition rather than an or condition.

    I believe that we have identified a new item D. in the e-mail thread between Jamie and I.  Having a member section created to explore an area or discipline with the eye to properly partitioning it may in the future be an extremely valuable and productive use of the member section construct.  This is especially true where in order to properly handle intellectual property considerations expansionist scope of technical committees is more problematic than it has been in the past.

    I concur on line 175.

    Have you given further thought to John’s comments?

    Regards,

    Don

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


    From: Patrick Gannon [mailto:]
    Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:50 AM
    To: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
    Cc: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    Don,

     

    Attached is a revision of the MS Policy with the two edits I mentioned below (regarding Line 59 and Line 173 in the previous version).  Does this address the issues you raised?

     

    --

    Patrick Gannon

     


    From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:17 AM
    To: ''
    Cc: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    I agree with your replies.  However, I strongly urge you to move option C. to be option A. Within that section. The reason for this is that any member section alone does nothing.  It's preeminent purpose is to support technical committees.  If it does not do this then your other points do not matter.

    Regards,

    Don

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


    From: Patrick Gannon [mailto:]
    Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:24 PM
    To: (LNG-DAY)
    Cc: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org; board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for the Board of Directors.

    Don,

     

    Thank you for your comments.  I am providing answers to your questions in-line below.

    --

    Patrick Gannon

     


    From: (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
    Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 8:45 AM
    To: ''; legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org
    Cc: (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