[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Objection to format and conduct of the reliable messaging panel
Board response to my note of April 28 From: Evans, Colin
[mailto:colin.evans@intel.com] Bob Thanks
for your comments. I was not at the session but I appreciate your point of
view. Your email
arrived in time for it to be considered at the OASIS Board meeting this week;
in fact we had a session with the TAB to discuss the Symposium. Overall
I think it is very unfortunate that one session of the symposium engendered
this kind of reaction when so much of what the TAB managed to accomplish
resulted in such an excellent program and created such a useful forum for
looking at the issues and opportunities we face Let
me take each of your recommended next steps and comment one by one : 1) TAB
Governance, Role, Membership - We
review each of the points on a regular basis with the TAB; there are no plans
to change Governance and Role and, as you know, there is an election process to
select TAB members. 2)
Future Panel Design -
This is the first Symposium we have run and there are a number of areas that we
could improve including this one. 3)
Delay Posting and Post Rebuttal -
Overall the Board believes this is a bad precedent to set. We don’t want
to rewrite history; a presentation was made, there was heated debate, not
everyone agreed with the analysis. In this case, however, we agreed that the TC
should be allowed to post their view as long as it is clear that all further
debate be directed to the TC discussion process. 4)
Bylaw Revision -
This is an interesting suggestion that is being discussed as part of our normal
vigilance on TC process. Again
thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. Regards Colin Office (503)264-6161 Mobile (503)720-4505 From: Bob Freund
[mailto:Bob.Freund@hitachisoftware.com] To: The Oasis Board of Directors The Oasis Technical Advisory Board April 28, 2004 On April 27, 2004, during what was promoted as a panel
"discussion" on reliable messaging, the draft Oasis Web Services
Reliability specification was savaged in a most unfortunate manner by the
authors of the competing proprietary specification. The moderator stifled
attempts by members to engage in technical discussion in disregard for his
role. While we welcome comments and critique, we find it unacceptable to
be coldcocked without opportunity to cross-examine, debate, or rebut. Some of the comparisons were technically accurate; however
there exist specific use-case rationale supporting those decisions which were
the result of the Oasis process. On the other hand, some were based on
apparently deliberate misinterpretation of the specification which like so many
political ads in this election season makes charges without foundation which
cannot be answered in anything but a disconnected and discontinuous
manner. What is damaging is not the commentary, but the impression
left by charges unanswered. Many in the audience will read neither specification
and will likely form their opinions solely based on the presentation. We
are also informed that the IBM assassination attempt will be posted on the
Oasis web site which further adds insult to injury by the very organization
chartered to guarantee the free exchange of ideas and broad participation in
the standards formation process. Clearly, based on the remarks made by
the IBM presenter he is no advocate of this process, and by inference the Oasis
organization itself. While some may believe that the IBM presenter may have been
hoisted on his own petard, nevertheless the validity of this organization has
come to challenge. The following corrective considerations ought to be weighed
to in some small manner compensate for these damages: 1) Examine
the governance of the TAB, its role, and membership. 2) Construct
future panels as debates with a forum which allows case presentation by both
sides, rebuttal, and prepared questions and discussion. It would then be
clear to participants the need to prepare for thrust and parry rather then mere
technical presentation. 3) Delay the
posting of papers on the Oasis web site relating to this panel for two weeks
and include, simultaneously with the other presentations, a paper, prepared by
the TC which will contain the TC's answer to these charges and its own
comparison of proposed standards. 4) Carefully
consider bylaw revision that would prohibit the reference of any proprietary
specification in any specification or draft authored by any Oasis TC. Without satisfactory resolution, we may be approaching the
point where companies participating in the Oasis process will re-consider their
future participation. If we were to follow the same rules as the
moderator of this session, you would have 30 seconds to respond. Rather, we
pray to receive your considered response prior to May 8, 2004. Bob Freund |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]