[COAS-List] vote-to-vote in Tokyo; PROXY!

[Larry Hamel <larryh@medgrid.philips.com>]

y'all,

it turns out that we were mistaken about dates at the Philadelphia meeting.
 we thought April 8 was a magic date for avoiding a vote-to-vote, but in
fact we will have a vote-to-vote in Tokyo to adopt the latest COAS
specification. 

only the document submitted March 1, 1999 can be considered in Tokyo
without a vote-to-vote, but that document is significantly out-of-date.  an
errata would be greater than 20 pages, and include many IDL changes.

the final document submitted April 8 is available at 
http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?corbamed/99-03-25 for review.  it employs
the IDL of the document that was revised, presented, printed, and
distributed in Philadelphia, except that TimeStamp is now a string with ISO
8601 representation, and the addition of some constants.

so we'll need your proxy, or your attendance, in Tokyo.  

the voting list is at 
http://www.omg.org/techprocess/meetings/schedule/Clinical_Observations_RFP.h
tml and we'll need a quorum of these voters for the vote-to-vote.  i think
we have consensus that the current specification, while leaving plenty of
work for future revisions, is sufficient to get started with.  certainly
the submitters are anxious to get this document approved and on the road at
the Tokyo meeting, rather than waiting another cycle.

below is a sample proxy intended to allow for last-minute corrections
(which might require a new doc number), along with a fax number for Tom
Culpepper of 3M, who is making sure we have enough proxies, and will attend
the meeting in Tokyo.  A signed fax is sufficient for assigning your proxy,
but email is not.  Fax the proxy into the Tom before May 10, preferably
ASAP.  The sample below is relatively permissive, including HRAC and other
CORBAmed business.  Of course, you can change the wording to limit your
proxy to specific issues if you like. 

please fax in your proxy, and let us know of any errata in the final
specification.  Tom is managing these also.

thanks,

larry

----------------------------------------------------------

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

19 April 1999

<XXX Company> wishes to allow 3M to vote on its behalf at the Tokyo meeting
of the OMG, May 16-21, 1999, in the following areas:  Clinical Observation
Access Service, and Healthcare Resource Access Control, CORBAmed Domain
Task Force and the Domain Technical Committee.

Yours,

<signature of official OMG voting-list person>

fax Tom Culpepper of 3M at (801) 263-3553 fax


-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
X-Sender: andrew@emerald.omg.org
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 19:24:21 -0400
To: Larry Hamel <larryh@medgrid.philips.com> 
From: Andrew Watson <andrew@omg.org>
Subject: Re: corbamed/99-03-25
Cc: Mary Kratz <mkratz@umich.edu>, Juergen Boldt <juergen@omg.org>

Larry,

You wrote (to Juergen):

> >when was the deadline extended....at the Philly meeting?

> yes, the deadline was extended at the CORBAmed meeting in Philly.
> today, i believe, is the last day which leaves whatever time is required
> before the Tokyo meeting for a regular submission review (without the
> vote-to-vote business).

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I'm afraid there is no way to
avoid a vote-to-vote at Tokyo for a new submission made against a deadline
that falls today. The P&P section concerned (section 4.2 bullet 8, attached
below) is very clear on this.

The only way you would be able to avoid vote-to-vote is not to make a new
submission now, but let the previous, pre-Philadelphia submission stand,
and adopt that at Tokyo. The only changes permitted to that submission
would be minor errata, showing exactly what text needed changing. Although
there are no exact criteria as to what counts as "minor", trying to use
this route to make a new submission is likely to be ruled out of order.

                                Regards,

                                     Andrew


[Excerpt from pp/99-01-02, section 4.2]

8.	Except as described below, neither a TF nor TC vote on a
recommendation to adopt a submission may be initiated until at least the
second OMG meeting following the (possibly extended) deadline for a
submission.

	A TF may explicitly vote to consider an adoption recommendation at
the meeting immediately following the due date of a final revised
submission
provided that the following conditions are met (otherwise no adoption
recommendation vote may be taken):

  * At least one of the submitters makes a formal request in writing (letter
or fax delivered to OMG headquarters), at least three weeks before the
beginning of the TF meeting in question, that the evaluating TF(s) make an
adoption recommendation at that meeting.

  * The discussion and vote to consider an adoption recommendation appears
on the published agenda along with the exact, correct time during which
the discussion (and possible vote) will be held.

  * The motion to consider voting upon an adoption recommendation passes
with at least 3/4 of the members present and on the voting list (or 3/4 of
those present and eligible to vote if there is no closed voting list)
voting affirmatively to consider such a vote.

[This procedure sets the expectation that submissions are presented to the
evaluating TF (and recommending TC) at the meeting immediately following
the due date. Voting members then have the time until the next meeting to
evaluate the submissions with the benefit of having had presentations and
the opportunity to discuss and clarify issues both with the submitters,
and amongst themselves.

The procedure for holding an "early" vote is designed to allow members
sufficient time to evaluate and reflect upon submissions. Only in the case
where there is an overwhelming consensus that such an "early" vote will
not disenfranchise members from conducting a reasonable evaluation is such
a vote allowed to proceed.]

>X-Sender: andrew@emerald.omg.org
>Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:55:46 -0400
>To: Larry Hamel <larryh@medgrid.philips.com>
>From: Andrew Watson <andrew@omg.org>
>Subject: Re: proxy procedure
>Cc: Juergen Boldt <juergen@omg.org>, coas-priv@cs.fiu.edu,
>        Mary Kratz <mkratz@umich.edu>
>
>Larry,
>
>You wrote:
>
>> can someone answer a few questions about proxy procedures?  for the Tokyo
>> vote-to-vote for COAS, what is the proper way to collect proxies?
>
>Turn up at the meeting with the proxies clasped in your hand! If you could
>also get them faxed to OMG that would help, but is not essential provided
>you can produce them when the Task Force vote(s) is/are taken.
>
>> i found some reference to proxies in pp/99-01-02, quoted at bottom, but
>> need more specific info.
>
>That section applies specifically to Technical Committee (not Task Force)
>proxies - although as I say, lodging proxies for TF votes with the staff
>doesn't hurt.
>
>>                          consider adding a web page for this info--a FAQ
>> about procedures that offers concrete examples of situations that are
>> mentioned in general in the Policies & Procedures guide.  with any luck,
>> this exchange could be the first item!
>>
>> what's the deadline?  i count 3 weeks prior as 26 April 1999.
>
>No deadline - three week or otherwise. Just have the proxies in hand when
>the vote happens.
>
>> below, Mary suggests that the proxies should be faxed to the OMG.  is the
>> fax number from the OMG web site, 1-508-820 4303, the correct destination?
>
>Yes.
>
>> also, how will COAS submitters know that the fax was received and noted?
>> apparently, the chair gets a list at the meeting, but that seems to leave
>> room for a mishap, like sending to the wrong fax number.
>
>The faxes are just a backup - think in terms of bringing along the proxies
>yourself.
>
>> can we get a running list of proxies sent in?  or would a fax carried by
>> hand to the meeting suffice?  if so, perhaps it would be better for a
>> submitter to collect the proxies?
>
>Yes - the latter.
>
>> also, is the letterhead part absolutely required?  (for me, letterhead is
>> a pain, whereas plain paper is easy.)
>
>Headded notepaper isn't mentioned anywhere in the P&P, so therefore it's
>not an absolute requirement - just a signature from the registered voter or
>someone nominated by him/her to vote on that company's behalf.
>
>> also, Mary suggests the following verbiage for the proxy.  does this seem
>> ok to you?
>
>Pretty much. I'd probably say '"XXX" wishes to allow "XXX(Suggest University
>of Michigan or 3M)" to vote on its behalf at the Tokyo meeting of the OMG
>(May 16-21, 1999), in any matter relating to the Clinical Observation
>Access Service RFP ...'. However, that's just a detail - your wording is
>certainly OK.
>
>> thanks for the info.  sorry to keep bothering you with this stuff, but
>> you've been so helpful in the past that you're easy targets :-)
>
>No good deed goes unpunished :-).
>
>                               Cheers,
>
>                                     Andrew
>
>
>
>

<<<<


Larry Hamel
Philips Medical Systems
2171 Landings Dr.
Mountain View, CA 94043-0837
U.S.A.

Voice:  +1 (650) 426 2553         
Email:  larryh@medgrid.philips.com
Fax:    +1 (650) 426 2550