[Fwd: Re: [TMG Vote] ebXML BPSS V1.1 TS Submission to TC154]

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

  FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [TMG Vote] ebXML BPSS V1.1 TS Submission to TC154
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:14:22 +0100
From: "Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>
Reply-To: UN/CEFACT Core Component WG <uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org>
Organization: Financial Toolsmiths AB
To: UN/CEFACT Core Component WG <uncefact-tmg-ccwg@listman.disa.org>
References: <F2B40416-7D24-11D8-AF3A-000A958E399E@attglobal.net> 
<40616E5C.6020609@toolsmiths.se> 
<55A9C6EC-7DAA-11D8-8204-000A958E399E@attglobal.net>



Dear Klaus,

Klaus-Dieter Naujok wrote:

>> The unexpected creation of this voting list and once again a rush 
>> decision raise several questions about transparency and procedure. I 
>> have no time to delibrate on these issues right now so Ill get back 
>> later on.
>
> Dear Anders,
>
> The creation of a list for voting members, as well as others, was 
> mention during the Bonn meeting. Since you were not always present it 
> may have been at a time of your absent.


Well, I was there in the mornings and afternoons and on monday opening 
and friday closing and didnt catch any word about such mailing list. 
Several members noted the same lack of transparent information. Neither 
has such arrangement been discussed *before* the TMG meeting on any 
mailing list.

Is it really good management that members are not notified *before* and 
after decisions? And that such important decision are not prepared and 
shared in good time *before* meetings?

To create a voting list for, only voting members is clearly not in 
accordance with democratic and transparency principles without allowing 
for any proper announcements, discussions including all TMG members. And 
at the same time open up discussion on the same *closed* list is not 
mechanism I, and I suspect many others, can endorse for a UN group such 
as TMG.

> As to the BPSS request for fast-tracking, that too was discussed and 
> deferred to be a topic for discussion after Bonn, which it is now.

This is correct, but at the same meeting that decision was also not to 
bundle CCTS and BPSS in same recommendation to ISO. CCTS was considered 
as ready but BPSS has not gone through implementation verification, is 
not fully UMM nor ebXML compliant, has known but unresolved IPR issues 
in, other words not ready, mature in the same manor as and in ODP phase 
as CCTS.

>
> As to the rush, that was unforeseeable and a result of the CSG and 
> Secretariat request who set the deadline not me.

A note is that it seems as if the secretariat asked for forwarding 
version BPSS 1.01 and not BPSS 1.10. It is also poor practice for a 
global organisation to not to consult with its partners,OASIS in this 
case, in such unprepared rush jobs. The BPSS submission could and should 
have been preparead in the same manor as CCTS *before* the meeting.

>> One part of the proposed voting procedure that must change is: "No 
>> response from any voting members will be interpreted as a "yes" vote. "
>
>
> This has been the best practice as implemented on other lists, 
> including that of the CSG and HoD. It follows the principle of the 
> UNECE, were one asked for "opposition" to a request instead of a show 
> of hands for support. What is a valid process for the rest of CEFACT 
> should be also a valid process for TMG. I don't foresee the need to 
> change this at all.


The TMG procedure states regarding "Resolution and formal decision taking
The objective is to achieve consensus[3]. In case of doubt concerning 
consensus, then, and only then, will a vote be taken and a decision made 
by a 2/3 majority of the P-members present."

It is highly unrealistic to give only 2 days for voting and at the same 
time change TMG voting principles without due deliberation and 
discussions. Once again the TMG procedures are not documented and 
apparently changed.

>> There are serious issues regarding the BPSS that must be addressed 
>> re. the Secretariats view regarding ebXML.
>
>
> Regarding the secretariat's view, that again is an issue for the 
> plenary to address. However, it was that same secretariat that open 
> the door for the BPSS to be added to the CCTS request for the plenary 
> to approve with the argument that the plenary endorsed those 
> specification last year.

It is clear that the secretariat and the global user community want 
UN/CEFACT to work *with* it partners such as OASIS. In this particular 
case the partner has not been consulted which is highly unfortunately 
and may reflect on future collaborations.

Good standardization principles involve stable, visible and 
*predictable* procedures and execution. It is clearly not desirable and 
acceptable that most TMG members have little awareness of decision being 
planned and decision that has being taken. An example is: were are the 
meeting notes for the last TMG forum meetings?

This has manifested itself that I have just learned through the 
grapewine that ISO apparently is *voting* on a document that contains a 
copy of UMM R1012 and latest UMM User guide. Why is there that CCTS had 
to go through such lengthy process to get to ISO when noone knew about 
UMM + User guide being already there ? And when , by whom was this 
decision taken ?

All in all, transparency, procedural and accountabilty questions. TMG 
need stability and predictability and not confusion if TMG is going to 
survive that trade facilitation challenges set forward by the UN  and 
the global community ..

Regards
/anders

-- 
/////////////////////////////////////
/ Business Collaboration Toolsmiths /
/ website:       /
/ email:     /
/ phone:  +46 8 562 262 30          /
/ mobile: +46 70 546 66 03          /
/////////////////////////////////////




---
You are currently subscribed to the uncefact-tmg-ccwg listserve.
To unsubscribe send an email to lyris@listman.disa.org with the
following subject: Unsubscribe uncefact-tmg-ccwg 
If you do not receive confirmation of your unsubscribe request 
please notify postmaster@disa.org to report the problem.


-- 
Senior Standards Strategist
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://www.adobe.com