OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

[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]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 5:02 PM
To: Bob Freund; john.borras@oasis-open.org; edward.cobb@oasis-open.org; colin.evans@oasis-open.org; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org; frederick.hirsch@oasis-open.org; jim.hughes@oasis-open.org; chris.kurt@oasis-open.org; jeff.mischkinsky@oasis-open.org; laura.walker@oasis-open.org; michael.weiner@oasis-open.org; karl.best@oasis-open.org; william.cox@oasis-open.org; chrisfer@us.ibm.com; tim.moses@entrust.com; pete@seebeyond.com; wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: Objection to format and conduct of the reliable messaging panel

 

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]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:38 AM
To: john.borras@oasis-open.org; edward.cobb@oasis-open.org; colin.evans@oasis-open.org; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org; eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org; frederick.hirsch@oasis-open.org; jim.hughes@oasis-open.org; chris.kurt@oasis-open.org; jeff.mischkinsky@oasis-open.org; laura.walker@oasis-open.org; michael.weiner@oasis-open.org; karl.best@oasis-open.org; william.cox@oasis-open.org; chrisfer@us.ibm.com; tim.moses@entrust.com; pete@seebeyond.com; wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Objection to format and conduct of the reliable messaging panel

 

 

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

Hitachi

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]