Re: XSLT-CONFORMANCE Mailing List

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

Eduardo wrote:
| > | b) There may or may not be an Oasis-sanctioned preliminary meeting
| > | of the people involved in (a); however, at some point,
| > |
| > | c) one of the above Oasis members sends mail to actc or its
| > | superceding authority and declares the intention of forming an
| > | Oasis TC.
| > 
| > But latecomers have no way to discover what has been discussed,
| > and others, perhaps thinking of setting up another committee on
| > the same topic, don't know the discussion (on an OASIS-sponsored
| > list, no less) is happening unless they caught the original Call
| > for P.
| 
| Correct - there is a possibility that more than one group is thinking
| the same thoughts. So? At this point the only thing that's happened
| is that a call for participation may have been issued. At which 
| point those who were also thinking the same thoughts will say
| to themselves, 'too bad, let's just join up the list'...

If they read it; if they were subscribed at the time.  I actually
missed the tpaML Call, and found it only later when I checked
the Announce archive.  We could remedy this by setting up a list
of Calls somewhere prominent on the site, but then it would have
to be maintained ...

| > | d) in due course, a mailing list is created; the main purpose
| > | of which is to ensure
| > | that those who subscribe to the list have an opportunity to
| > | volunteer as TC (voting) members. Should this be archived? The
| > 
| > Actually, the point is also to formulate the charter of the
| > prospective TC, else there would be no point in preliminary
| > discussion.
| > 
| > | more I think about it the more I think not. The purpose of the
| > | list at this point is non-technical; reviewing its archive would
| > | not "enlighten" late-comers, and it should not. Once the TC
| > 
| > Why would it not, why should it not?
| 
| I wrote in shorthand. I meant that it should not enlighten the
| latecomers on technical issues. My position is that there should
| be no preliminary technical discussions. One may agree or not
| with this position, but if you do agree then I believe you might
| also agree that there should be no record of whatever technical
| discussions took place, albeit 'inadvertently'.

Ah.  I think I'd consider any discussion bearing on the charter
to be technical discussion (so from my point of view you couldn't
get a charter without engaging in such).  Anyway, my position is
that discussion about the prospective charter should be visible
in an archive before the TC is formed.
...

| I'm starting to think that, because the charter can be such an
| important document (and I've seen it being manipulated right left
| and center in the W3C in order to achieve certain goals) it would
| be perhaps wise for a group to start with a preliminary charter,
| or perhaps the word is tentative, that the TC, upon its formation,
| has to ratify. Lots of people do not pay enough attention to charters,
| and that comes back to bite them in the most unexpected places later on.
| So yes, not tabula rasa as regards the charter, but also not with
| a charter that cannot be modified before technical work starts.

Yes, that happened with SGML on the Web.  But the charter has to
exist when the TC is formed, because it's what the ACTC or Board
approves to scope the TC's purpose.  The TC doesn't get to 
approve its charge, so its precursor must do so before proposing
it.

regards, Terry