Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] MARBUX POINT OF ORDER, OBJECTION, AND SUGGESTIONS No. 1

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Simon Calderson <caldersons@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> marbux/Paul,
>
> While the problems you've listed are recognizable, I think your suggestions are inoperable: the rules of OASIS seem pretty clear, and we cannot convene committees to discuss a framework of debate for the production of a charter for a committee to discuss interop. There are 90 days (80 now?), and for the most part the only item of any real debate is going to be around deliverables. I suggest we focus on the task at hand and make the best of it - not to say we can't make improvements, but let's all be aware this is temporary, time-limited and it's not worth getting hung up on process.

Who is going to decide what goes in and stays out of the charter and
how those decisions are going to be made are fundamental to making a
decision in any group. Right now, we have Rob running around making
decisions like he is in charge while simultaneously disclaiming that
he is. That is a formula for IBM to have its way despite what anyone
else wants and I'm not going to play that game.

Either we have a fair process or the rest of us may as well go home
and just let Rob write what he damn well pleases. That is what he is
doing. Like I said, I'm seeing Rob proclaiming consensus on threads I
hadn't even read yet and arrbitrarily deciding himself what stays in
and out of the charter. He's claiming the power of the chair and more
when it suits his goals and disclaiming that he has any power when
objections are made. That is not an acceptable resolution to my point
of order and objection. It is grounds for litigation under the
antitrust laws.

However you cut it, we've got a failure of leadership on our hands. If
you want to be one of Rob's sheep, that's your business. But I am not
going to dutifully agree with everything Rob says and does when he has
disclaimed any power to assert leadership.  It's an 800-pound gorilla
act.

I will respond to the remainder of your post in a separate post if I
find time, since it raises technical questions about something I said
that I used only as an example and I already stand accused of being
too lengthy in my posts. .

Best regards,

Paul

-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>