I will admit freely - I did not even know there were two Notes at play here, that is why I only voted on one. I didn't see the other one and didn't know it existed until it was remarked the other day that it didn't pass. Looking at it, its an 11 page document with only a page of actual content (the other 10 pages are OASIS template) - why wasn't this just put in the 1 note on requirements? - Jason Keirstead Chief Architect - IBM Security Threat Management
www.ibm.com/security Would you like me to give you a formula for success? It's quite simple, really. Double your rate of failure. - Thomas J. Watson ----- Original message ----- From: Allan Thomson <
athomson@lookingglasscyber.com> Sent by: <
cacao@lists.oasis-open.org> To: MARONEY, PATRICK <
rx118r@att.com>, '
cacao@lists.oasis-open.org' <
cacao@lists.oasis-open.org> Cc: Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cacao] Outstanding Ballots Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2020 12:05 PM Pat - If we nominated one of the bi-weekly TC meetings to be 'the monthly' call then I think it would result in people getting voting rights easily and achieve the same thing. Every TC meeting we typically do a quick recap of where we are at on progress and then spend time getting into the details. Secondly, once someone has voting rights they don t just lose them immediately again. So if folks want to attend just 1 monthly meeting they could just come to every other meeting and check in on the progress. Regards Allan On 4/3/20, 7:45 AM, MARONEY, PATRICK <
rx118r@att.com> wrote: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATES FROM OUTSIDE OF LOOKINGGLASS Allan, Thanks. I closely analyzed the CACOA roster and meeting attendance data before commenting. Yes there are a core group of people/organizations regularly participating. My suggestion was targeted specifically increasing that participation in terms of Organizations engaged/represented. If there's no perceived issue with same, then please simply disregard. Patrick Maroney Principal Cybersecurity AT&T Chief Security Office -----Original Message----- From: Allan Thomson <
athomson@lookingglasscyber.com> Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 10:29 AM To: MARONEY, PATRICK <
rx118r@att.com>; '
cacao@lists.oasis-open.org' <
cacao@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject: Re: [cacao] Outstanding Ballots Hi Pat - I think the working calls have been well attended for the most part. I will note that several of the regular attendees to the working calls, and who have voting rights, didn't actually vote on the ballots. We missed one of the ballots passing by 2 votes. So we would always welcome more participation on working calls. The lack of votes on the ballot were not because of lack of registered voters that could have voted on the ballots. Allan On 4/3/20, 6:10 AM, MARONEY, PATRICK <
rx118r@att.com> wrote: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATES FROM OUTSIDE OF LOOKINGGLASS Re: - I believe this was primarily because folks didn't vote as there were no *no* votes. Just lack of yes votes. Suggestion: Adoption of a more traditional OASIS TC process with monthly TC meetings that count towards voting rights (vs. having working meetings count towards same) might greatly extend voting rights to interested stakeholders. The current cadence/process make it impossible to achieve voting rights for some of us. In my case I have a standing weekly meeting that will always conflict with the current consensus Tuesday CACAO calls A monthly TC call that determines voting rights (with evening sessions for those that have conflicts/time zone issues) could potentially double the roster of voting eligible members. I of course understand the difficulties of chairing Day/Evening sessions. But a change to more traditional TC meetings/voting rights MAY improve participation. Row Labels Count of Id Chair 2 Member 27 OASIS Staff Contact 2 Observer 20 Secretary 3 Voting Member 20 Grand Total 74 Give it a try perhaps for a month or so? Patrick Maroney Principal Cybersecurity AT&T Chief Security Office -----Original Message----- From: Allan Thomson <
athomson@lookingglasscyber.com> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 3:54 PM To:
cacao@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [cacao] Outstanding Ballots The ballots have closed. 1) The requirements document has passed and was approved. 2) The terminology document failed to reach the necessary votes to pass. - I believe this was primarily because folks didn't vote as there were no *no* votes. Just lack of yes votes. We will discuss on the next call what the TC wants to do with respect to the terminology document to re-ballot or other actions. Allan On 3/31/20, 8:06 AM,
cacao@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Allan Thomson <
cacao@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of
athomson@lookingglasscyber.com> wrote: THIS EMAIL ORIGINATES FROM OUTSIDE OF LOOKINGGLASS All - As mentioned on the call here are the 2 ballots currently open. For voting members please take a moment to review and vote. Requirements
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cacao/ballot.php?id=3488 Terminology
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cacao/ballot.php?id=3489 Both ballots are for committee notes. Regards Allan