RE: [rights] tyranny of the majority but no consensus

["Radbel, Dmitry" <dmitry.radbel@umusic.com>]

Reading the steady stream of e-mails today which largely share the same subject, I figured I'll reply to the first one. I have joined the RLTC only two weeks ago so I have not witnessed how this sorry situation has come about, but clearly not all is well in RLTC. I find it particularly disturbing that some personally attack Hari Reddy's conduct. Reading some of the e-mails, he's been accused of improperly managing the TC process, of not following the rules, of "shutting down" the participants he does not agree with, and of ignoring in his analysis some of the submissions.
 
My knowledge of and interactions with Hari are limited to the last week's F2F and yesterday's conference call. I thought that in both instances he did his best to manage the meeting and to allow people to speak during a very contentious debate. I also thought that he rather faithfully adhered to Robert's Rules, including management of the voting process. Per some of the e-mails, Hari is practically obligated to reach consensus rather than allow voting. Actually, the first TC chair responsibility listed in the OASIS TC Guidelines is to "keep the TC moving towards completion of its charter, on schedule." In the long list of TC chair's duties there is nothing about reaching consensus (surely it's desirable but not always possible).
 
I did not want to base my judgement on a couple of meetings. But we do have a "paper trail", so I went to to RLTC website and reviewed the documents, the minutes of the meetings (from 5/21, 5/29, 6/12, 6/26, 7/10, 7/24, 8/7, and 8/21) and the e-mail correspondence. The minutes clearly show that the schedule that Hari is obligated to uphold - including timelines for draft requirements gathering and disposition - has been set quite a while ago and via a democratic process. I found the schedule in Hari's e-mail from 7/9 (there might have been earlier versions) and per minutes of subsequent meetings it has been reviewed regularly. The "RLTC Requirements" document indicates multiple iterations - I went to the e-mail threads and Hari posted all these iterations asking for comments. I have also found multiple threads which show that when people had specific and actionable comments Hari have been addressing them. And the requirements did not have to be dispositioned by 8/7 - Hari's documents clearly show that he co

 
I don't understand the argument that Hari's work is somehow invalid because requirements were being mapped to the "initial set". Is the set wrong? Is the mapping wrong? Seems to me that the point here is that not all of the originally submitted requirements are presented verbatim - but how would one produce a meaningful requirements document without combining 100's of overlapping requirements into a concise set? And why is it Hari's fault that the requirement for a royalty free language implementation has been voted down? How can RLTC promise anyone royalty free language implementation when the whole area is full of patents?
 
I don't understand why RLTC can't have Version 1 of the requirements and then have further iterations - most of the requirements documents I have ever dealt with were iterated. And it does not mean that requirements added in the next version are some kind of 2nd class citizens. I am reviewing the requirements and have some comments - but it does not mean that the TC has to delay its schedule until they are resolved to my satisfaction. I also don't understand why trying to synchronize with an international standards body (the goal which has been clearly stated in the minutes of the very first meeting on 5/21) is seen as some kind of sinister plot. Is not having common standards a good idea? What is the concern? We are not defining rights themselves but a language for expressing them.
 
After reviewing the available documents, I personally think that Hari did an admirable job of compiling and processing requirements under difficult conditions. Bob, you are appalled by the votes (would you still be appalled if they did not go against you?) and you and others blame much of it on Hari for supposedly being partial, improperly biasing the work process, etc. The essense of it seems to be that he has an opinion which is different from yours and that some decisions that he has made are disagreeable with you. Frankly, I find such a personal attack - as you put it - appalling.
 
Respectfully,
 
Dmitry Radbel, VP Advanced Technology 
Universal Music Group
2220 Colorado Ave.,  Santa Monica, CA 90404 
Office 310-865-7801   
e-mail: dmitry.radbel@umusic.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Glushko [mailto:glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 10:43 AM
To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org; rights-requirements-help@lists.oasis-open.org; karl.best@oasis-open.org
Cc: mnemonic@well.com; murray Maloney; liora Alschuler; rachna Dhamija
Subject: [rights] tyranny of the majority but no consensus


I am going to respond to the note from Mike Godwin below sent to me and Hari Reddy since I doubt that Hari will.

I too am appalled by the recent votes at the F2F and on yesterday's conference call.  But neither surprised me.

In the days before the F2F, I sent Hari several messages urging restraint in the face of the mounting pressure from the MPEG constituency in the TC to ignore the fact that the requirements process hadn't reached consensus but he didn't reply to me. He didn't reply to me afterwards either when I suggested he take steps to address the bad feelings caused by the votes at the F2F.  He has steadily lost the impartiality with which he began as the TC chairman and now predictably sides with the "party line" as defined by Content Guard and Microsoft, ignoring the fact that a substantial proportion of the members are opposed to the "damn the requirements process, full speed ahead" approach they advocate. 

The critical votes were 11 to 10 and 12 to 9 on Thursday and 10 to 8 yesterday.  This bare majority clearly demonstrates there is no consensus for moving forward at this pace -- and also demonstrates that there is little chance that a specification will be voted out of the TC for submission to OASIS, since far more than 1/4 of the membership will oppose it.  I am puzzled by the persistence of the MPEG side given this arithmetic.  No specification will be voted out of the TC without dealing with the full set of requirements submitted to it.  Do the math.

I understand that some of the member companies in this TC have strong business interests to "get something out" but I also believed in its charter.  The first goal is said to be:

Define the industry standard for a rights language that supports a wide variety of business models and has an architecture that provides the flexibility to address the needs of the diverse communities that have recognized the need for a rights language

It is clear now that any community other than the MPEG is a second-class citizen whose requirements will be dealt with at some unspecified future time. It has been disingenuous to call for participation by user organizations and by people who care about legal and regulatory  issues and then vote to suppress any meaningful impact of their contributions.

bob glushko






X-Sender: mnemonic@brillig.panix.com
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:34:46 -0400
To: "Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>,
   "Mike Godwin (E-mail)" <mnemonic@well.com>
From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@well.com>

Gentlemen,

I am astonished to hear that the wishes of experts contributing to the subcommittee were wholly ignored in the vote this afternoon.

It seems clear to me that certain corporate members attended the meeting with the intention of circumventing the wishes of those who want to see the first version of the REL accurately express a full range intellectual-property rights.

I hereby register my protest. I think this was immensely insensitive on the part of the corporate members, and am considering whether and how to publicize this subversion of a purportedly "open" standards process.

This was the last thing I expected, given the representations that had been made to me about the subcommittee's work. In the time we had allotted this morning, I believe I demonstrated my willingness to help the committee reach a first edition of its work in a reasonable amount of time, and I point out that drawing a line with regard to submissions was my idea.

I feel an immense sense of betrayal, and I imagine that other members do too.


--Mike



-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"I speak the password primeval .... I give the sign of democracy ...."
           --Walt Whitman
Mike Godwin can be reached by phone at 202-637-9800
His book, CYBER RIGHTS, can be ordered at
         http://www.panix.com/~mnemonic <http://www.panix.com/~mnemonic>  .
--------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Robert J. Glushko, Ph.D.
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~glushko <http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~glushko> 
School of Information Management & Systems
102 South Hall
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-4600