[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-csc] Re: CSC call on 26 November
the first question is to ask ourselves is do we perceive a requirement for better co-ordination ? if the answer is no, then lets let it drop. if it is yes, then what are our potential strategies? my proposal for the CSC is just the first one i could think of - but i would be happy to entertain alternatives. i agree that administrivia was the original charter of CSC- and i had hoped that it would remain at that. certainly i dont want to suggest we make changes without explicit and open debate. in fact, i am reluctant and disappointed to have to suggest this role of coordination, cooperation or clearinghousing - but i cannot think of a better way. Eduardo Gutentag wrote: > I think the purpose of CSC from the beginning was the resolution > of administrivia, *not* coordination, cooperation or clearinghousing. > > We'd have to change both the goal and the attitude of CSC to > attain what you and Tim obviously think is needed, or we would > have to put some other mechanism in place. But whatever is done > would have to be done explicitly, not just having an existing > mechanism silently assume a different role. > > > Anne Hendry wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Since it appears as though the only people who may show up to >> the CSC are the people who already discussed these topics >> yesterday in the LCSC, I don't think my discussion topic >> on it's own warrants a meeting of those same people again. >> Instead I'll add my thoughts to Tim's in hopes of broadening >> the discussion to the rest of the chairs. >> >> I second Tim's concern about disconnects. So far with the new >> SC's we have a fair amount of overlap, but questions are still >> coming up that require cross-sc communication and we don't >> have a framework for those discussions. I like to see the >> Chairs SC take a more proactive role in providing guidance >> and direction for managing the workflow (and communication) >> between scs and for the CSC to be the place we discuss alignment >> as we go forward, rather than leaving this to ad-hoc discussions in >> individual scs, leaving some people out of the loop, which will >> come back to bite us later. I've always assumed the CSC to be >> the clearinghouse for cross-sc issues and the coordination of >> the various scs seems to me to fall within that scope. If that's >> not within the csc's scope, though, then let's decide how else >> to best make this happen (coordination/alignment between scs). >> >> Thanks, >> >> -A >> >> P.S. Since we're taking this to email and it's rather late now >> (and I should be on vacation ...) I may very well not be dialing in >> to tomorrow's chairs call. I think the email route is more likely >> to elicit participation at this point! :) >> >> Tim McGrath wrote: >> >>> i guess it may be a small attendance at the meeting so I will put >>> my thoughts in email and we can follow it through this way. >>> >>> I raise this issue because it was evident at the last plenary that >>> despite the best efforts of all involved we had managed to get >>> seriously disconnected between the work of NDR and LC. it was only >>> after the event i realised how seriously broken this process had >>> become. in fact, the first thing we should do is acknowledge that >>> we have not yet realigned the two groups - just bought time to do >>> so. the situation with the work on code lists is a case in point. >>> Obviously, this is a management issue - it has nothing to do with >>> who is right or wrong, good or bad technology, personal abilities, >>> willingness of participation, etc. It is better management that is >>> needed. >>> >>> I am sure none of us want to be facing these fundamental disconnect >>> issues again at the January 2004 plenary. We need UBL 1.0 to be a >>> technical spec. with a clear and common ownership from the entire TC. >>> >>> In the past we have relied upon overlapping membership and nominal >>> liaison members to ensure we keep our work items aligned. I do not >>> think this has been successful. What is more, we now have 4 new >>> subcommittees to add into the equation. The question is what else >>> can we do? >>> >>> It may be that for the next 3 months the chairs group has to become >>> more proactive in its co-ordination activities. for example, >>> seeking progress and activity reports and initiating tasks when >>> things are not happening. That is, perhaps we need a project >>> management team and the chairs SC would appear to be the easiest way >>> to do this. >>> >>> I am not a fan of 'management for management's sake' but I want us >>> to ensure that participants in UBL get the satisfaction of knowing >>> their work is recognized and they are making a valid contribution to >>> the results - no more dead ends, parallel developments and wheel >>> spinning. >>> >>> Does anyone else have the same concerns? >>> >>> >>> jon.bosak@sun.com wrote: >>> >>>>> There will be a CSC call on 26 November. Time 11:00 EST. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Argh. That's right when I should be on the way to the airport for >>>> the flight back from Detroit, and given the expected holiday >>>> crowds, I can't play games with the time. I'd appreciate a very >>>> brief summary of where you get with the discussion of coordination >>>> across subcommittees; I'm betting that you won't get this resolved >>>> in 15 minutes, but I'd like a hint as to where Tim is heading with >>>> this so that I can think about it over the break. >>>> >>>> Jon >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the >>>> roster of the OASIS TC), go to >>>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-csc/members/leave_workgroup.php. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> regards >>> tim mcgrath >>> phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western >>> australia 6160 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >> of the OASIS TC), go to >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-csc/members/leave_workgroup.php. >> >> > -- regards tim mcgrath phone: +618 93352228 postal: po box 1289 fremantle western australia 6160
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]