RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] A Vote Not to Approve the PolicyRequirements Document

["Lewis, Diane" <Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov>]

Thanks Don, Roger and Catherine for your thoughts and contributions to the TC.

I support option #1.

<Option #1. Table or cancel the Court Policy Requirements document and all remaining work on specifications in the "Court Filing 1.x family," leaving "Court Filing 1.1," "Court Document 1.1," and "Query and Response 1.0" as "proposed specifications" of the TC that are written in DTD.> 

As i expressed at the Boston meeting we need to move on to writing 2.0 specifications. At that meeting we also discussed the intersections between the repository discussions and the court policy.  All this needs to be revisited by an active TC membership.

I suggest the following ... 

Focus only on a 2.0 specification agenda in Las Vegas.... start drafting SOWs for Court Document specification, Court Filing specification;
revisit membership and chairmanships on subcommittees... i understood in Boston that some current specification authors were not going to be available to work on 2.0 specifications due to commitments to other TCs or organizations as well as their professional lives.

I will not be attending the December face to face meeting... but i will be anxious to know the decisions and outcomes of the meeting discussions.  (i will be at the XML Conference)  As i stated in Boston... the work we are doing here in DC can support the authoring of the 2.0 specifications and leveraging work done by other federal agencies and Global will facilitate the TC work as well.

One federal agency recently put together an XML filing capability between two entities in 3 weeks based on open standards...   the years of hardwork of many members has brought the community to this point of completion... We applaud all of you!!!  

Now we just need to stay focused and turn on the electricity in our minds to cross the next finish line.   The stars are all aligned in early 2003.. to bring about 2.0 specifications.  The resources are known... and the community expertise identified..   

I will be in and out of my office beginning later this week through the end of the year... but will closely monitor my OASIS Legal XML mail... i have collected sample documents from my customers and will start mapping the available resources to the data requirements .... e-gov act implementation and homeland security make our work all the more important.... to ensure the due process of <law and order> continues in the virtual world .... 

I am off to London where i hear the tube may be a target.... it's a risk i am willing to take....   i trust that you as a member of this TC will join me in daring to complete 2.0 specifications by april fools day 2003!!!  Regards, Diane Lewis  



-----Original Message-----
From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:16 PM
To: 'legalxml-courtfiling(a)lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] A Vote Not to Approve the Policy
Requirements Document


To the Court Filing Technical Committee:

 

We owe a vote of thanks to Don Bergeron for persisting in his work on the
Policy Requirements document. He has presented it to us on numerous
occasions and has done what he could with the limited input he has received.
He accepted the assignment and discharged it with little help from the rest
of us.

 

I have worked on the document, first to suggest changes I thought would make
Don's exposition of requirements clearer, for my sake and maybe others.
Since Don's call for a vote last week, I have worked through the document
again, this time looking for ways to ensure it would give us all the
requirements that the Policy specification should later be written to
fulfill. Unfortunately, the latter effort hasn't worked. 

 

I believe the Electronic Court Filing TC needs to go back to the drawing
board with the Policy specification, because we, the TC members, failed to
engage ourselves with the subject. We left it to Don to develop this work
product. He presented it in Utah in June and it has been available in
written form for our review and comments since. There has not been much
feedback. I believe it is because most of the members of the TC have not
been paying attention. Perhaps the feeling has been, "So long as it isn't
yet a draft specification, it doesn't matter if I don't pay close attention
- someone will do that and, if they do not, is much harm done?"

 

I noticed we didn't get to the agenda item below on our last conference
call. Because we didn't discuss and decide anything about it, it appears the
assertion it was "removed from consideration" wasn't taken as final, and now
we've been called to vote. (Per our adopted Procedures - who has read them??
- the co-chairs are the ones who are to announce review and approval periods
and set the deadlines for comments and votes.)

"11. Discussion of Court Policy -- as time permits. The draft requirements
document has been removed from consideration. Do we want to pursue a
different approach in constructing a revised requirements document?" 

I vote not to approve the proposed Requirements. I believe they are
incomplete. Some of the sentences in the document I simply could not
understand for lack of specifics and definitions and context. I do not feel
it provides a complete statement of what the Policy specification must
address. I fear that if we adopt the Requirements for Policy as written as
our official statement, we will publish something that shows how lightly we,
as a TC, have treated their development. 

 

I like to think about and share alternatives, not just say I feel something
hasn't worked out. Accordingly, I propose the following:

 

Option #1. Table or cancel the Court Policy Requirements document and all
remaining work on specifications in the "Court Filing 1.x family," leaving
"Court Filing 1.1," "Court Document 1.1," and "Query and Response 1.0" as
"proposed specifications" of the TC that are written in DTD. 

 

Further:

 

a) Although I do not know of any court or vendor that expects to implement
the original DTD-based architecture fully, as we had envisioned a while ago,
if there is such a project, the TC should offer to work with the court or
vendor involved to help them meet their needs while the TC does what it
needs to do. 

 

b) The TC should now begin development of the "2.x" specification(s) and,
whether a single Schema or a family of Schemas, divide the work into logical
parts (e.g., Filing Transaction, Court Form, Document, Query/Response,
Policy/CDC <-These are not proposals.) and assign groups (not individuals)
to get to work on them. The first step, by our procedures, would be for each
group to draft the "Statement of Work," to clarify what is to be done and
get agreement of the whole TC on that, and then to proceed to develop
Requirements, followed by a draft "Candidate Specification," and so forth. 

 

c) As part of the development work, the TC should seek out alternative
architectural proposals from anyone willing to offer them (vendors, OXCI,
the California group?) so we can review them along with the one we have. We
could then rethink our basic ideas and move forward with a renewed, shared
vision, whatever it turns out to be. Whether we stick with what we have
developed before or not, I believe we need a reality check to make sure all
of us are in agreement as to goals, purposes, architecture, specifications
needed, etc. 

 

HOWEVER,

 

Option #2. If we are to continue to develop a Court Policy 1.x
specification, I believe a newly reconstituted authoring committee needs to
be recruited to restart the process, this time, according to our new
procedures: 

 

a) Develop a Statement of Work (What is involved? How will the policy
interface be used? Who is needed to do the requirements and drafting work?
etc.) and get the TC's approval to proceed based on it. 

 

b) Work out the Requirements anew, e.g., review it against Don's work, look
at all of the "Functional/Technical Requirements" adopted by the JTC of
COSCA/NACM, and review it in light of all of the elements and functions of
the other specifications of the "1.x" family of the Court Filing "family" of
specifications, including those not yet written.

 

c) Within the drafting committee, ensure all requirements are well defined
and explained for the lay person (since they must be understood not only by
the designer of the EFM and other systems but by each court's experts in its
policies and practices). That is what should go to the TC for review and
approval. Building on the work already done might help keep this process
from taking too long. The result would be an approved statement of
Requirements for Court Policy that would be a detailed guide to help
developers of the Court Policy specification know what they must address and
a clear exposition for courts on what matters and why.

 

d) Proceed then through the rest of the specification development steps:
draft the Court Policy candidate specification, have it vetted on the List
and at a Face-to-Face, incorporate input and publish for vote, in which case
the specification can become a "Proposed Specification" of the TC. Based on
experience from implementations and criteria in the specification, it then
could later be elevated to a "Recommended Specification." (These are the
procedures we adopted "without dissent" a few weeks ago.)

 

I recommend we adopt Option #1., above. If we adopt Option #2., instead, I
propose we also get started on Option #1. anyway.

 

For a long time I have been concerned that I didn't understand many things
being said and discussed at the TC, because the "tech speak" behind it
seemed so familiar to almost everyone else in the room (evidenced by the
head-nodding and lack of questions), so I kept silent. I have come to
believe that others have been silent too and that the appearance of
agreement, especially since "silence is approval," is actually evidence of
confusion, uncertainty, and deference to the most vocal others because "they
seem to know what they're talking about." It's time for all of us to make
sure that we all know what we are talking about and that we are, indeed,
actively in agreement.

 

Regards,

 

Roger

 

Roger Winters

 

"They'll forget it was late, but they'll never forget it was wrong!"

 

Electronic Court Records Manager

King County
Department of Judicial Administration

516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609

Seattle, Washington 98104

V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906

roger.winters@metrokc.gov