ADs who are also WG chairs

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

> What's to stop Big Bad Company stuffing an Oasis WG with ringers?

What is to stop them doing that in an IETF WG? Since everyone is
theoretically participating as an individual I can't see how the WG Chair
could claim consensus if big bad company wanted to block something.

Oh yes, sorry I remember the WG chair can claim consensus because at the end
of the day it is only his opinion that matters. See DNSEXT for details.


> What's to stop a commercial grouping pushing something through
> an Oasis WG that is good for them and harmful to the Internet?

Same as when the IETF proposes something that would be harmful, the
community of users rejects a protocol that it does not want.

But it is a good question since there are far more companies with market
power who are now participating in OASIS than are currently fully engaged in
IETF process. So if there is a risk that 'evil' protocols come from OASIS
and 'corrupt' the Internet then that is going to be happening regardless of
what the opinion is here. 


> How can Roberts' Rules be applied on a mailing list?

Roberts rules are not directly applicable to a mailing list since
it is asynchronous conversation. They are applicable to conference
calls and in person meetings.

Even so we have had many successful polls through mailing lists, 
in many cases using Quaker polls and other consensus finding 
processes rather than the more divisive up or down questions we
see in IETF process.

> (I'm not trying to make debating points - I really am concerned
> that these are serious weaknesses in the model you describe. And I
> spent two years chairing a Board that supposedly followed Roberts'
> Rules and used email extensively, and I can't answer the third
> question.)

And your evidence for thinking that the IETF approach is working at any
level would be what?


		Phill