Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Abbie,

Abbie Barbir wrote:
> Patrick
> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with allowing
> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environment that they
> are used to.
>
>   
RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.

Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing 
Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that 
they are used to" isn't marketing.

Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order to 
get them to participate in OASIS.

The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any 
meaningful way.

If it were, that would have been your first response.

So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is 
meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.

Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick



> Have a nice day
> Regards
> Abbie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:25 PM
> To: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
>
> Greetings!
>
> The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
>
> Orit Levin:
>   
>> 1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical specifications.
>> 2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use cases and 
>> scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
>> 3. This TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms and vendors 
>> working in the Telecom area who feel most comfortable with RAND to 
>> contribute to the discussion.
>>     
> and, Abbie Barbir:
>
>   
>> Plus I would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such as TM 
>> Forum, ITU-T etc.. and  working closely with them to get requirements 
>> from their documents. These SDO operate under RAND and as such this 
>> make the flow of information between the OASIS SOA TC and the other 
>> SDO more fluid.
>>     
> Seem very unpersuasive to me.
>
> First, I can't say that I am familiar with the practice of treating
> requirements as IPR. Can someone point me to known legal authority for
> the notion that a requirement is subject to some vendor's IPR? (Granting
> that if I publish a book with a list of requirements, my statement of
> the requirement may be copyrighted, i.e., "Text must be presented in a
> *bold* font." (copyright Patrick Durusau 2008) but the substance of the
> requirement itself, that is that users want to use *bold* text, I don't
> think is subject to any IPR claim.)
>
> Second, from what has been said the TC doesn't intend to produce
> anything that is subject to any known IPR claim, thereby rendering RAND
> rather meaningless.
>
> Third, following up on Abbie's comment, is making this TC operate under
> RAND a marketing strategy to make it more attractive to vendors who
> aren't advised well enough to realize that requirements are not subject
> to IPR? Or who take false comfort from committees that operate under
> RAND?
>
> While I am all for marketing OASIS as much as the next person I think
> offering meaningless RAND on material that cannot be the subject of IPR
> is a very bad marketing strategy. What do we say to those vendors who
> falsely took our word that the requirements produced by this TC were
> subject to RAND? Some dreaded FOSS group implements technology to meet
> those requirements more cheaply and efficiently than commercial vendors.
>
> Then what do we say? No, let's be honest up front with all our members,
> even commercial vendors.
>
> BTW, I think anyone who charters a TC under RAND should have to specify
> what IP is being contributed under what conditions so that OASIS members
> can make a determination as to whether they wish to participate or not. 
> As far as I can tell at this point, neither Microsoft nor Nortel have
> any IP as traditionally understood to contribute to this TC. So, why the
> RAND? (Other than for false advertising purposes.)
>
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> Patrick Durusau
> patrick@durusau.net
> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>
>
>   

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)