Re: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP and attribute-free encodings...

["CONSULTRAC" <rcarlton@consultrac.com>]

Art,

I am simply unable to fathom your inability to understand the nature of the
"facts on the ground."

To Whit:

1. CAP 1.0 is DONE and out for vote. It will be ratified, or not, depending
on consensus within the organization, and according to its procedural codes.
No comment, act, or implication I have seen in any message traffic suggests
otherwise. Therefore, in my view, your concerns over the potential
"hijacking" of the initiative are unfounded and needlessly obstructive to
good order and discipline. Let the process work.

2. Why do you insist on making this a "me and them" evolution? No one is
taking YOU to task. NO one has suggested that YOU, or the SC's work, is
fundamentally flawed. NO one has suggested that there is no value in the
work done to date, or that it did not deserve to be offered for
ratification. By its nature standards-setting is progressive and
evolutionary. CAP 1.0 is a starting, not an ending, point.

3. Why would you suggest that the leadership be changed? How is such a
demand justifiable? Have you not benefited from that leadership? Is the CAP
spec not out based on consensus vote in spite of the Chair's personal
concerns? Is the Chair the only individual now offering substantive
criticism? In the latter case, certainly not. In the former; CAP IS out for
OASIS vote, in addition to the fact that your SC always received the support
it asked for, and did throughout the entirety of the spec's formative
process. To suggest otherwise is to simply be in denial, for reasons that
are apparently unknowable.

4. Why is it impossible for you to turn loose of this bone? One has to
wonder what motivates the level and energy behind your continual rhetoric.
All the committee cares about is the quality and usefulness of the final
product at every stage of its progression, and its value will be decided by
the organization through its standing voting mechanisms, rather than by the
committee. Factually, then, it is out of "our" hands.

You have been repeatedly and politely counseled by your friends, and
professional associates, that this argumentative tack is destructive and
uncompelling. Why do you persist in defending a position that does not need
defending, and serves no purpose beyond making everyone's life miserable. WE
are trying to WORK TOGETHER, while you on the other hand appear to be stuck
on a message that "only Art's views are valid." If that is the case, then
you are being both disrespectful and ignorant of the motivations, and
intellectual quality, of your committee associates. These are smart people
with long experience. If I were you I'd listen a bit more to what everyone's
trying to say to you. Believe me, in my experience, the ultimate product
will be a much better one at every stage of its life cycle. And since no one
has any intention of moving in with anyone else, the final product is the
only component that counts.

Rick


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Art Botterell" <acb@incident.com>
To: "R. Allen Wyke" <emergency-tc@earthlink.net>
Cc: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Karl F. Best"
<karl.best@oasis-open.org>; "Scott McGrath" <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP and
attribute-free encodings...


> Allen -
>
> Robert's Rules stress the importance of an impartial Chair: "If the
> chairman has even the appearance of being a partisan, he loses much
> of his ability to control those who are on the opposite side of the
> question. There is nothing to justify the unfortunate habit some
> chairmen have of constantly speaking on questions before the
> assembly, even interrupting the member who has the floor. One who
> expects to take an active part in debate should never accept the
> chair, or at least should not resume the chair, after having made his
> speech, until after the pending question is disposed of." (Art. X)
>
> Nonetheless, we've welcomed your many vigorous contributions to the
> debate, when they were made in the appropriate venue, and at the
> appropriate time.  But I believe that the very intensity of your
> opinions have made it impossible for you to serve effectively in the
> Chair.  (The same certainly would be true of me, but I have no such
> aspirations.)
>
> As to your various concerns... we've been working on CAP for a year
> now, including seven months at the TC level.  Anyone who reviews the
> record will see that you've had... and taken... plenty of opportunity
> to make your case.  But there has to be a point where the debate ends
> and the majority rules.  The TC voted... repeatedly, in fact... to
> advance CAP 1.0 and hold over the remaining issues for the next cycle.
>
> And although you deny that the intent of your public statements, made
> outside the OASIS process, was either to scuttle or to discredit the
> current ballot, I'm sure you can understand how folks who know the
> depth of your feelings might wonder.
>
> - Art
>
>
>
> At 11:48 AM -0500 3/26/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
> >On Mar 23, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
> >
> >>While I've maintained a relationship with the pre-existing
> >>community that laid the groundwork for CAP, I've made a concerted
> >>effort not to drag internal TC disagreements out into that public
> >>forum, and to express only my understanding of the TC's conclusions
> >>and in appropriately tentative and open-ended terms.
> >
> >Putting on my Chair hat, this is why I replied to this email Your
> >"understanding of the TC's conclusions" was not an accurate
> >recollection of the events, so I provided additional information
> >about what happened (or didn't), along with links as to what did
> >happen. I will address how I conveyed my personal views inline
> >below...
> >
> >>But for our Chair to publicly criticize our approved Committee
> >>Draft (see below)... saying things like "we did the wrong thing by
> >>taking the all attribute approach"
> >
> >Which is why I put IMHO - to further signify that this was my view,
> >even though I have Chair concerns with it. Specifically, as Bob's
> >email points out, it is a view that is very hard to defend.
> >Things/decisions that are hard to defined become issues for the TC
> >and can impact adoption.
> >
> >>and "there is not enough 'specification' there to do that in a way
> >>that supports the vary nature of what CAP is suppose to support"...
> >>and to say these things "ex officio," explicitly signing himself as
> >>TC Chair...
> >
> >I really do not know how to respond to this other than to point out
> >that this talks to, as detailed in a separate email, that CAP is not
> >easy to defend as a "protocol", and therefore this statement is
> >nothing more than one based on that fact. Let's get really pure
> >about it and look at the computer science definition of protocol,
> >which can be found on Dictionary.com, which states:
> >
> >"A standard procedure for regulating data transmission between
computers."
> >
> >While CAP regulates the data, it does nothing to address its
> >transmission (insert all the debates about "transport" and "how to
> >implement" here).
> >
> >>and to do it right in the middle of a ballot period and immediately
> >>prior to the public launch of CAP should that ballot pass... all
> >>that strikes me as as a shocking failure of judgement and
> >>leadership, as potentially damaging both to the CAP effort and to
> >>OASIS's credibility, and as just plain wrong.
> >>
> >>Allen, I really think you ought to consider whether it might be
> >>time for you to assume a different role.
> >
> >This TC, like any standards committee, is an open forum to discuss
> >topics as long as those discussions pertain to the task at hand. The
> >comments provided, which I would be more than happy to technically
> >defend, are put forth with the intension to try and improve CAP. At
> >no time do I say or even imply that I am talking about changing 1.0
> >in mid-stride - we had that vote. In fact, putting my Chair hat on,
> >these comments would not be addressed until "future version"
> >whatever version identifier that maybe.
> >
> >Additionally, we should never discourage comments at any time. Even
> >if comments, no matter who they came from, changed the outcome of
> >the vote (NOT my intension btw), then its not because someone took
> >the time to submit comments, but because the spec was not adequately
> >defended or defendable. If what we put out can not take and
> >appropriately handle/stand up to comments and/or criticism, then
> >that is a reflection of our work - not the commenter.
> >
> >Allen
> >
> >--
> >R. Allen Wyke
> >Chair, OASIS Emergency Management TC
> >emergency-tc@earthlink.net
>
>
> 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/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
>