OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP andattribute-free encodings...


As so frequently happens, Allen, I think we're in violent agreement. 
My concern is just that CAP 1.0 isn't really done until the OASIS 
ballot is complete, and I don't think anyone wants to see that ballot 
colored by negative PR, even of an unintentional nature.

Personally... and I think a number of folks share this opinion, based 
on the conversation when Rex chaired the TC a few weeks back... I 
think we'd be wisest to collect any inputs, be they from OASIS 
members or from the public as gathered in by TC members, but to defer 
active debate until after the current ballot is complete.  That would 
avoid any possible risk of confusing OASIS voters as to what exactly 
their vote would mean... and we certainly have plenty of other work, 
like discussion of the future goals and direction of the TC, to 
occupy our energies in the meantime.

I entirely share your desires that both CAP and our TC should be 
better.  In fact, I don't foresee a day ever when that won't be true.

Thanks for bringing this thread to a constructive end.

- Art


At 3:14 PM -0500 3/26/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
>Art, I can only apologize, if I am accurately interpreting the 
>issues you seem to have, that this is the understanding you have of 
>where we are in the process. While there are clearly some other and 
>deeper issues that seem to be coming forward that will need to be 
>addressed, I sincerely want to try and help you understand where 
>things are, which I *hope* will put all the comments that have been 
>made into perspective. I am going to go ahead and cc: the list in 
>this reply just to make sure we are all on the same page.
>
>First, CAP 1.0, from a spec (not marketing) perspective, is "done" 
>as it pertains to the TC. It has passed its tests (been voted on) 
>and sent to college (off to the next standards challenge - the OASIS 
>membership). So, there should be no concerns about "stopping" CAP or 
>freezing it to rehash previously discussed issues. No one can change 
>this, and I am honestly trying to interpret your passion as a 
>reflection of wanting to keep this that way. Rest assured, this is 
>the case.
>
>Moving on and the second thing to remember is that what we are 
>engaged in (ie: these emails flying back and forth) is taking the 
>feedback (external, internal, mine, yours, whoever) and throwing it 
>back into the group for debating and discussion. This is exactly 
>what we have wanted, and that you have personally asked for on many 
>occasions - to get CAP out and get feedback from implementors. That 
>is what is happening.
>
>As I stated in a previous email, the resolutions of these issues, if 
>they required any material change from v1.0, would be put in a 
>subsequent version of CAP (1.1, 2.0, whatever). So, all of the 
>comments that are being made are being made from the perspective of 
>"what's next to address." How can we make CAP better in the next 
>version? This is the step we are now at with CAP.
>
>I think it is important to put the comments in the right time and 
>space, as doing such can result in misunderstandings through two or 
>more groups discussion what may seem like the same issue, but are 
>actually different ones (e.g., are these issues to be addressed in 
>1.0 or 1.1).
>
>Hopefully this clarifies things and will help refocus the context of 
>the discussions - Allen
>
>On Mar 26, 2004, at 1:59 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
>
>>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



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]