i brought this point up at our last call, and i think we decided to make
it a supermajority of present members. can't find the minutes right now
to confirm.
Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
> I had understood that we only required a super majority of present
> members, not a super majority of the entire group. I believe that
> requiring a super majority of the entire group penalizes those who
> show up for meetings.
>
> Thanks,
> Yaron
>
> Diane Jordan wrote:
>
>>
>> On the last call, I promised to send an email restating the process
>> for opening issues that we discussed and adopted on the call. Here
>> it is and I've taken the opportunity to use Tony's proposal as an
>> example. (Tony, hope you don't mind being the test case).
>> 1. proposed issues will be reviewed on the TC call if they are
>> received 7 or more days before the call. (Thus this one will be
>> reviewed on the call Sept 15). 2. on that call, we will first ask if
>> there are any objections to opening the proposed issues as a bug.
>> If there are none, we will open the issue, end of process.
>> 3. If there are objections, we will have a vote (requiring simple
>> majority) on whether it is bug related. This will be not be done
>> immediately - it will be done either by web ballot starting
>> immediately after the meeting or at the next meeting (in this case
>> the f2f on Sept 21-23). The decision on whether to use the web
>> ballot or wait till the next meeting will be based on whether we
>> desire further discussion about whether it is a bug or not on the
>> next call before the ballot. If the ballot results in it being
>> considered a bug, we will open the issue, end of process
>> 4. If the ballot to declare it a bug doesn't pass, there will be a
>> second ballot, held right away (for this eg, Sept 21-23), on whether
>> to allow it to be opened. ---------> Note that since we've decided
>> this ballot to open a non-bug will require a super majority and that
>> is based on full voting membership rather than quorum, we may not be
>> able to hold it if there aren't enough members in the meeting. If
>> there are enough attendees (ie, at least 2/3 of voting members), we
>> will vote immediately - if it fails, and the number of absences are
>> such that it could pass if they all voted for it, we will defer the
>> decision and vote via web ballot starting immediately after the
>> call/meeting. The web ballot will run for 7 days per the OASIS
>> process. From our general attendance rates, its probable we will
>> usually be able to have the initial vote on our call but will have to
>> go to the web ballot if there are more than a couple folks who don't
>> want it opened. If the second ballot to open the issue passes, we
>> open the issue, end of process. If the ballot to open the issue
>> does not pass, the issue will move directly to closed status and the
>> "revisitable" flag will be set, end of process.
>> Again, just as an example, best case we could decide this is a bug
>> and open it on the call Sept. 15, or worst case, it could be Sept 30
>> before we've resolved what to do. (This is one week less than most
>> cases because the f2f in Sept means we have meetings 3 weeks in a row).
>> Any questions?
>> Regards, Diane
>> IBM Emerging Internet Software Standards
>>
>> (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Tony Fletcher" <>*
>>
>> 08/27/2004 12:54 PM
>>
>>
>> To
>> <>
>> cc
>>
>> Subject
>> [wsbpel] New BPEL Issue - add explicit conformance statements /
>> section
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> I move that we accept a new "bug" issue into the issues list
>> concerned with adding an explicit set of conformance statements,
>> preferably in a conformance section, to the specification for
>> 'BPEL'. The rationale and a draft proposal is given in the attached
>> document.
>>
>> Resolving this issue will not lead to the addition of any new
>> features.. However, it will enhance and clarify the text in a
>> significant manner and therefore is worth tackling at this time.
>>
>> The process of adding such a conformance section will cause us to
>> think about and address the following questions:
>>
>> For what sort of 'things' can conform to the BPEL specification?
>>
>> For each type of 'thing' for which conformance can be claimed, what
>> precisely does that thing have to be / do / not do to be conformant.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Tony/ /
>>
>> <http://www.choreology.com/> Tony Fletcher
>> Technical Advisor
>> Choreology Ltd.
>> 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J UK
>> Phone: +44 (0) 1473 729537
>> Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
>> Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077
>> Web: www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/>
>> Cohesions™
>> Business transaction management software for application coordination
>> Work:
>> Home: <mailto:>
>>
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>
