The "Bylaws"


Stephen Wood
 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making. 

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.


Jason Keirstead
 

Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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




From:        "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        oca-pgb@...



Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.






Stephen Wood
 

Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.

 

Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.

 

 

 

 

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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




From:        "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        oca-pgb@...


 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.





sfractal
 

I think it’s worth discussing more as well and I can go either way. I’ll be out of pocket in early January down under but can contribute with emails. WRT Oasis I would consider their rules negotiable as projects are new to them as well so they would probably appreciate input. I don’t want to rush but conversely don’t want to delay as I really want this to succeed and live up to its mission as it is disparately needed.

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize


From: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of Stephen Wood via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org <swood=tripwire.com@...>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 3:35:42 PM
To: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
 

Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.

 

Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.

 

 

 

 

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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




From:        "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        oca-pgb@...


 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.





Jason Keirstead
 

I think one thing to keep in mind here, is the linked document is actually a set of corporate bylaws -  because this referred to consortium is a stand alone non profit entity.

As the OCA is not a corporation, most all of this is not only unnecessary, it would not actually even be things we could possibly include in governance, as it is covered actually under OASIS's corporate bylaws and the OP rules and we can not supercede those.

This is one of the key differences in fact between an OASIS Open Project (like the OCA) and an OASIS FIAB (Foundation in a Box) - the latter is a standalone legal entity, while the former is purposefully not, it's designed to be very light weight so the members don't have to be concerned with a lot of this.

I will set up a call on this in the new year with Chet and possibly Jamie with whomever wants to go over this all in detail.



sfractal --- [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws" ---

From:"sfractal" <duncan@...>
To:oca-pgb@...
Date:Sat, Dec 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"


I think it’s worth discussing more as well and I can go either way. I’ll be out of pocket in early January down under but can contribute with emails. WRT Oasis I would consider their rules negotiable as projects are new to them as well so they would probably appreciate input. I don’t want to rush but conversely don’t want to delay as I really want this to succeed and live up to its mission as it is disparately needed.

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize


From: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of Stephen Wood via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org <swood=tripwire.com@...>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 3:35:42 PM
To: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
 

Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.

 

Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.

 

 

 

 

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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




From:        "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        oca-pgb@...


 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.






Stephen Wood
 

I agree with your assessment.

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 6:51 AM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

I think one thing to keep in mind here, is the linked document is actually a set of corporate bylaws -  because this referred to consortium is a stand alone non profit entity.

As the OCA is not a corporation, most all of this is not only unnecessary, it would not actually even be things we could possibly include in governance, as it is covered actually under OASIS's corporate bylaws and the OP rules and we can not supercede those.

This is one of the key differences in fact between an OASIS Open Project (like the OCA) and an OASIS FIAB (Foundation in a Box) - the latter is a standalone legal entity, while the former is purposefully not, it's designed to be very light weight so the members don't have to be concerned with a lot of this.

I will set up a call on this in the new year with Chet and possibly Jamie with whomever wants to go over this all in detail.


sfractal --- [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws" ---

 

From:

"sfractal" <duncan@...>

To:

oca-pgb@...

Date:

Sat, Dec 21, 2019 10:08 AM

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"


 

I think it’s worth discussing more as well and I can go either way. I’ll be out of pocket in early January down under but can contribute with emails. WRT Oasis I would consider their rules negotiable as projects are new to them as well so they would probably appreciate input. I don’t want to rush but conversely don’t want to delay as I really want this to succeed and live up to its mission as it is disparately needed.

 

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize


From: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of Stephen Wood via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org <swood=tripwire.com@...>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 3:35:42 PM
To: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.

 

Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.

 

 

 

 

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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




From:        "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        oca-pgb@...


 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.



 


Stephen Wood
 

Jason,

Just thought I would check in.  Have you had a chance to set up the call mentioned below?  I’m trying to make sure that my calendar is current.  Its part of my new year clean up.

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 6:51 AM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

I think one thing to keep in mind here, is the linked document is actually a set of corporate bylaws -  because this referred to consortium is a stand alone non profit entity.

As the OCA is not a corporation, most all of this is not only unnecessary, it would not actually even be things we could possibly include in governance, as it is covered actually under OASIS's corporate bylaws and the OP rules and we can not supercede those.

This is one of the key differences in fact between an OASIS Open Project (like the OCA) and an OASIS FIAB (Foundation in a Box) - the latter is a standalone legal entity, while the former is purposefully not, it's designed to be very light weight so the members don't have to be concerned with a lot of this.

I will set up a call on this in the new year with Chet and possibly Jamie with whomever wants to go over this all in detail.


sfractal --- [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws" ---

 

From:

"sfractal" <duncan@...>

To:

oca-pgb@...

Date:

Sat, Dec 21, 2019 10:08 AM

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"


 

I think it’s worth discussing more as well and I can go either way. I’ll be out of pocket in early January down under but can contribute with emails. WRT Oasis I would consider their rules negotiable as projects are new to them as well so they would probably appreciate input. I don’t want to rush but conversely don’t want to delay as I really want this to succeed and live up to its mission as it is disparately needed.

 

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize


From: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of Stephen Wood via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org <swood=tripwire.com@...>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 3:35:42 PM
To: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.

 

Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.

 

 

 

 

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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




From:        "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        oca-pgb@...


 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.



 


Jason Keirstead
 

No we haven't set it up yet.
 
Chet do you have availability this Thursday to discuss the thread below?
 
-
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: "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
Sent by: oca-pgb@...
To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2020 2:46 PM
 

Jason,

Just thought I would check in.  Have you had a chance to set up the call mentioned below?  I’m trying to make sure that my calendar is current.  Its part of my new year clean up.

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 6:51 AM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

I think one thing to keep in mind here, is the linked document is actually a set of corporate bylaws -  because this referred to consortium is a stand alone non profit entity.

As the OCA is not a corporation, most all of this is not only unnecessary, it would not actually even be things we could possibly include in governance, as it is covered actually under OASIS's corporate bylaws and the OP rules and we can not supercede those.

This is one of the key differences in fact between an OASIS Open Project (like the OCA) and an OASIS FIAB (Foundation in a Box) - the latter is a standalone legal entity, while the former is purposefully not, it's designed to be very light weight so the members don't have to be concerned with a lot of this.

I will set up a call on this in the new year with Chet and possibly Jamie with whomever wants to go over this all in detail.



sfractal --- [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws" ---

 

From:

"sfractal" <duncan@...>

To:

oca-pgb@...

Date:

Sat, Dec 21, 2019 10:08 AM

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"


 

I think it’s worth discussing more as well and I can go either way. I’ll be out of pocket in early January down under but can contribute with emails. WRT Oasis I would consider their rules negotiable as projects are new to them as well so they would probably appreciate input. I don’t want to rush but conversely don’t want to delay as I really want this to succeed and live up to its mission as it is disparately needed.

 

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize


From: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of Stephen Wood via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org <swood=tripwire.com@...>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 3:35:42 PM
To: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.

 

Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.

 

 

 

 

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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




From:        "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        oca-pgb@...


 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.



 

 

 


Chet Ensign
 

Jason, Happy New Year. Yep. I'm busy 10:00 AM through noon eastern time. The rest of it is available to you all. 

Best, 

/chet

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:59 PM Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@...> wrote:
No we haven't set it up yet.
 
Chet do you have availability this Thursday to discuss the thread below?
 
-
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: "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
Sent by: oca-pgb@...
To: "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2020 2:46 PM
 

Jason,

Just thought I would check in.  Have you had a chance to set up the call mentioned below?  I’m trying to make sure that my calendar is current.  Its part of my new year clean up.

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 6:51 AM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

I think one thing to keep in mind here, is the linked document is actually a set of corporate bylaws -  because this referred to consortium is a stand alone non profit entity.

As the OCA is not a corporation, most all of this is not only unnecessary, it would not actually even be things we could possibly include in governance, as it is covered actually under OASIS's corporate bylaws and the OP rules and we can not supercede those.

This is one of the key differences in fact between an OASIS Open Project (like the OCA) and an OASIS FIAB (Foundation in a Box) - the latter is a standalone legal entity, while the former is purposefully not, it's designed to be very light weight so the members don't have to be concerned with a lot of this.

I will set up a call on this in the new year with Chet and possibly Jamie with whomever wants to go over this all in detail.



sfractal --- [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws" ---

 

From:

"sfractal" <duncan@...>

To:

oca-pgb@...

Date:

Sat, Dec 21, 2019 10:08 AM

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"


 

I think it’s worth discussing more as well and I can go either way. I’ll be out of pocket in early January down under but can contribute with emails. WRT Oasis I would consider their rules negotiable as projects are new to them as well so they would probably appreciate input. I don’t want to rush but conversely don’t want to delay as I really want this to succeed and live up to its mission as it is disparately needed.

 

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize


From: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...> on behalf of Stephen Wood via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org <swood=tripwire.com@...>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 3:35:42 PM
To: oca-pgb@... <oca-pgb@...>
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.

 

Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.

 

 

 

 

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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




From:        "Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        "oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        oca-pgb@...


 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.



 

 

 



--

/chet 
----------------
Chet Ensign
Chief Technical Community Steward
OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 


Jason Keirstead
 

Stephen does 10 AM work for you?

-
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




From:        Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@...>
To:        Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@...>
Cc:        oca-pgb@...
Date:        01/06/2020 03:18 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"




Jason, Happy New Year. Yep. I'm busy 10:00 AM through noon eastern time. The rest of it is available to you all. 

Best, 

/chet


On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:59 PM Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@...> wrote:
No we haven't set it up yet.
 
Chet do you have availability this Thursday to discuss the thread below?
 
-
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: "Stephen Wood" <
swood@...>
Sent by:
oca-pgb@...
To: "
oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2020 2:46 PM
 

Jason,

Just thought I would check in.  Have you had a chance to set up the call mentioned below?  I’m trying to make sure that my calendar is current.  Its part of my new year clean up.

 

From:oca-pgb@...[mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent:
Saturday, December 21, 2019 6:51 AM
To:
oca-pgb@...
Subject:
Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

I think one thing to keep in mind here, is the linked document is actually a set of corporate bylaws -  because this referred to consortium is a stand alone non profit entity.

As the OCA is not a corporation, most all of this is not only unnecessary, it would not actually even be things we could possibly include in governance, as it is covered actually under OASIS's corporate bylaws and the OP rules and we can not supercede those.

This is one of the key differences in fact between an OASIS Open Project (like the OCA) and an OASIS FIAB (Foundation in a Box) - the latter is a standalone legal entity, while the former is purposefully not, it's designed to be very light weight so the members don't have to be concerned with a lot of this.

I will set up a call on this in the new year with Chet and possibly Jamie with whomever wants to go over this all in detail.


sfractal --- [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws" ---

 


From:"sfractal" <duncan@...>
To:oca-pgb@...
Date:Sat, Dec 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"


 

I think it’s worth discussing more as well and I can go either way. I’ll be out of pocket in early January down under but can contribute with emails. WRT Oasis I would consider their rules negotiable as projects are new to them as well so they would probably appreciate input. I don’t want to rush but conversely don’t want to delay as I really want this to succeed and live up to its mission as it is disparately needed.

 

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize


From:oca-pgb@...<oca-pgb@...> on behalf of Stephen Wood via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org<swood=tripwire.com@...>
Sent:
Friday, December 20, 2019 3:35:42 PM
To:
oca-pgb@...<oca-pgb@...>
Subject:
Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 


Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.
 
Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.
 
 
 
 
 
From: oca-pgb@...[mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent:
Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To:
oca-pgb@...
Subject:
Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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



From:        
"Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        
"oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        
12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        
oca-pgb@...

 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.


 

 



 




--

/chet 
----------------

Chet Ensign
Chief Technical Community Steward
OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society

http://www.oasis-open.org

Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 




Stephen Wood
 

I’ll do that.

 

 

From: oca-pgb@... [mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 11:29 AM
To: Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@...>
Cc: oca-pgb@...
Subject: Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

Stephen does 10 AM work for you?

-
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




From:        Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@...>
To:        Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@...>
Cc:        oca-pgb@...
Date:        01/06/2020 03:18 PM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"





Jason, Happy New Year. Yep. I'm busy 10:00 AM through noon eastern time. The rest of it is available to you all. 

Best, 

/chet

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:59 PM Jason Keirstead <Jason.Keirstead@...> wrote:
No we haven't set it up yet.
 
Chet do you have availability this Thursday to discuss the thread below?
 
-
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: "Stephen Wood" <
swood@...>
Sent by:
oca-pgb@...
To: "
oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2020 2:46 PM
 

Jason,

Just thought I would check in.  Have you had a chance to set up the call mentioned below?  I’m trying to make sure that my calendar is current.  Its part of my new year clean up.

 

From:oca-pgb@...[mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent:
Saturday, December 21, 2019 6:51 AM
To:
oca-pgb@...
Subject:
Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 

[EXTERNAL]

I think one thing to keep in mind here, is the linked document is actually a set of corporate bylaws -  because this referred to consortium is a stand alone non profit entity.

As the OCA is not a corporation, most all of this is not only unnecessary, it would not actually even be things we could possibly include in governance, as it is covered actually under OASIS's corporate bylaws and the OP rules and we can not supercede those.

This is one of the key differences in fact between an OASIS Open Project (like the OCA) and an OASIS FIAB (Foundation in a Box) - the latter is a standalone legal entity, while the former is purposefully not, it's designed to be very light weight so the members don't have to be concerned with a lot of this.

I will set up a call on this in the new year with Chet and possibly Jamie with whomever wants to go over this all in detail.

sfractal --- [EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws" ---

 

 

From:

"sfractal" <duncan@...>

To:

oca-pgb@...

Date:

Sat, Dec 21, 2019 10:08 AM

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"


 

I think it’s worth discussing more as well and I can go either way. I’ll be out of pocket in early January down under but can contribute with emails. WRT Oasis I would consider their rules negotiable as projects are new to them as well so they would probably appreciate input. I don’t want to rush but conversely don’t want to delay as I really want this to succeed and live up to its mission as it is disparately needed.

 

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize


From:oca-pgb@...<oca-pgb@...> on behalf of Stephen Wood via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org<swood=tripwire.com@...>
Sent:
Friday, December 20, 2019 3:35:42 PM
To:
oca-pgb@...<oca-pgb@...>
Subject:
Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"

 


Thanks for the fast response.  Early Jan will work.
 
Just to give you something as a reference point, here is a link to the Bluetooth Bylaws. https://3pl46c46ctx02p7rzdsvsg21-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Bylaws.pdf   I’m in no way advocating for this level of rigor.  It is just here for its comparative value.
 
 
 
 
 
From: oca-pgb@...[mailto:oca-pgb@...] On Behalf Of Jason Keirstead via Lists.Oasis-Open-Projects.Org
Sent:
Friday, December 20, 2019 12:27 PM
To:
oca-pgb@...
Subject:
Re: [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
 
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Stephen;

Unfortunately today is my last day before I planned to go away on holiday, I am returning on the second after which I think we can definitely organize an ad-hoc call to discuss any concerns you have. And indeed, I don't want to go ahead with a vote until I think your concerns are addressed.

One thing I want to make sure you're aware of - is that this is not the only document that governs the OCA. The OCA is first and foremost governed by the OASIS Open Project rules (
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process). These rules are quite strict as far as how actual decision making in the PGB occurs. The OCA governance document is an add-on, on top of that, whose purpose is to address how we as the OCA are going to steward our community and our open source projects (the existence of said governance document is also outlined in above mentioned rules). The governance document does not and can not supersede anything in the OP rules.

I agree we definitely need to be clear as to what the OCA is and what it is not. As it is chartered today, the OCA as an OASIS Open Project it is quite different from a SIG. An OP's primary mission is advancement of the open source projects in it's prevue, not to do interop / certifications or industry advocacy. Indeed, the OCA is not really set up to do any of those activities today (nor does it have any budget to perform them). If we wanted to do any of those things, we would all have to take a vote to increase our own dues, to create a budget to engage in those activities. We'd also need to figure out what they actually mean in the context of the OCA charter.

-
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



From:        
"Stephen Wood" <swood@...>
To:        
"
oca-pgb@..." <oca-pgb@...>
Date:        
12/20/2019 04:12 PM
Subject:        
[EXTERNAL] [oca-pgb] The "Bylaws"
Sent by:        
oca-pgb@...


 

Jason,

 

In the spirit of being as constructive as possible, I wanted to open a conversation with you before I stir things up unintentionally.

 

I went over the Governance docs.  Let me tell you where my head is at.

 

There is a philosophical divide that you need to think about.  The documents are written to address an open source software project.  Those are very casual and operate under the assumption that you contribute if you like where this is going and otherwise don’t.

 

By contrast, there is a Special Interest Group type of logic.  In that case, we are here to collectively create and advocate on behalf of the industry.  There are resources that are shared (money, development time).  There is a need to take action on behalf of the many like forming relationships with other entities, performing interoperability testing, speaking on behalf of the group, etc.  In this space, the bar goes up in terms of the organization’s level of professionalism.  We have to be a lot more crisp about decision making.  

 

In this later environment, there is usually a two part pattern of behavior (drawing from the computer and communications sectors).  There is the standards development (that looks a lot like our open source activity) and then there is the SIG that represents the industry, performs interop & certification and advocates.  OASIS is blending these two.  That’s not a bad thing, but we need to make sure that we decide which parts of the activity are in scope and which are out.

 

I can dump a lot of stuff into comments, but I think I’m going to drive you nuts unless we have a shared understanding of where all of this is going.  Are you going to be active early next week?  Any chance we can talk before I do anything more.

 

FYI, Duncan’s efforts to harden voting rules is an artifact of crossing these lines.  Harder rules are not needed for open source projects but they are essential to a SIG effort.

 

 

 



 




--

/chet 
----------------
Chet Ensign
Chief Technical Community Steward
OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Mobile: +1 201-341-1393