[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
On Feb 14, 2006, at 9:39 AM, David RR Webber ((XML)) wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> One thing I missed mentioning - is that Blogger has a really nice
> ability to script a default template for both the site UI look-n-feel
> and postings themselves, making it ease for OASIS to have a common
> setup and configuration.
>
> Part of that is to provide submitters the choice of how they are
> contributing - personal comment, or company formal comment, and if IPR
> constraints apply, or none. Right now we're clearly not capturing
> any of that.
If we can set something that will make clear and commit folks to their
IPR obligations, that's great. Under the new OASIS IPR policy, i don't
think one has a choice - OASIS can't accept "contributions" to a TC
stds process which don't conform to the relevant licensing obligations.
Anything we can do to make that less painful is a good thing.
I'm wondering if some variation of the following would work:
1. anyone who wants to contribute has to "register" somehow - more
of an anti-spam thing anyway (e.g. i believe in order for anyone to
send stuff to an OMG email list, they have to register in the omg db
which ensures they have a valid email address - this keeps most of the
spam off their lists). As part of that registration, they could agree
to the "std" click through oasis feedback license.
2. But up some sort of a permanent disclaimer reminding posters that
they are incurring licensing obligations, which they already agreed to
as part of the registration above.
cheers,
jeff
>
> And I feel Toby's pain factor here - when you do expose that detail -
> expect alot of people to react by turning back at the gate and not
> even posting on the basis of if-in-doubt-do-nothing. Design is
> obviously vital to minimize that touch-and-feel rejection of
> excessively burdening legalese is avoided. If simple Q&A stuff can be
> encouraged that is a positive outcome.
>
> DW
>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
>> From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
>> Date: Tue, February 14, 2006 11:38 am
>> To: "Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology Office)"
>> <Toby.Considine@unc.edu>
>> Cc: "Paul Knight" <paul.knight@nortel.com>, "Carol Geyer"
>> <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>, "Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>,
>> <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>, "David RR Webber (XML)"
>> <david@drrw.info>, "Robin Cover" <robin@oasis-open.org>
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Considine, Toby ((Facilities Technology
>> Office)) wrote:
>>
>> > It has been observed that for organizations oft reach a point where
>> > it is more important that no one ever do anything wrong than it is
>> > that anyone ever do anything. I always felt that some of the rules
>> in
>> > the new IP were an example of this. We have had people leave our
>> group
>> > citing frustration at not having any open collaborative tools to
>> use.
>> >
>> > If someone wanted to seed oBIX with proprietary information, they
>> > could merely send several us us email, ate our public addresses, and
>> > accomplish the same thing.
>>
>> There is a difference. If you contribute an idea for which you don't
>> have the IPR rights, then YOU have violated the OASIS IPR agreement,
>> and will have to bear the consequences. Hopefully this will be in
>> member's consciousness and make them think twice before adopting
>> someone else's ideas without getting permission.
>>
>> If someone sends in a comment via the official comments process then
>> they are legally obligated to license that IPR according to the terms
>> of the IPR rules in effect, because they first "sign" an agreement
>> stating so.
>>
>> >
>> > I like the idea of BLOGS for the committees. I like the idea of
>> > drive-by comments. I detest the obscurity the the current IP and
>> tools
>> > encourage - they seem t me to be creating LESS open standards.
>>
>> Don't know if they are more or less open, but they should have
>> "cleaner" IPR and licensing rules associated with them. I'm not sure
>> how the new rules create obscurity. (I do agree that they are a bit
>> more cumbersome in that you have to use a click through form, rather
>> than just firing an email. And you might think twice when the legal
>> implications of what your comment commits your company to, but that's
>> exactly the intent -- make sure your company will provide licenses to
>> implementers of OASIS specs if necessary.)
>>
>> cheers,
>> jeff
>> >
>> > tc
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
>> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:49 AM
>> > To: Hal Lockhart
>> > Cc: Carol Geyer; Paul Knight; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org; Robin
>> Cover
>> > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
>> >
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > I would point people back to the possiblity of using a Blog to
>> resolve
>> > all this.
>> >
>> > I've been making extensive use of the free Blogger.com
>> infrastructure
>> > - but there are also open source tools that OASIS could host too.
>> >
>> > With some very simple scripting into the HTML side - you can pull
>> the
>> > RSS feeds into Kavi - would take a minute to do.
>> >
>> > Blogging for business is a very serious and powerful use of XML - [
>> > that we should be showcasing?!? ; -) ] - and the new Office 12 has
>> > this builtin (there are some tools for MS Word 2003 right now too).
>> >
>> > I'm running projects daily using blog tools - along with news feeds,
>> > dialogues / comments, and email thread tracking. Google probably is
>> > going to start charging me soon - since I have nearly 20 of these
>> > things and counting - up and running!!
>> > On Blogger you have full control of both moderated comments and
>> > requiring human key code / account for comments - so this knocks out
>> > spam spiders and people who are just trawling to post ads / virus /
>> > phishing links.
>> >
>> > Just a thought...perhaps I should do a WebEx for the OASIS staff to
>> > show-and-tell this...?
>> >
>> > DW
>> >>
>> >> -------- Original Message --------
>> >> Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
>> >> From: "Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>
>> >> Date: Tue, February 14, 2006 10:37 am
>> >> To: "Robin Cover" <robin@oasis-open.org>
>> >> Cc: "Carol Geyer" <carol.geyer@oasis-open.org>, "Paul Knight"
>> >> <paul.knight@nortel.com>, <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
>> >>
>> >> Well, I guess we have been lucky in SAML and XACML. I have not
>> seen a
>> >> lot of SPAM and we not only get possible FAQs, but also sometimes
>> >> errata
>> >> received outside of the Public Review cycle.
>> >>
>> >> If the SPAM problem is that bad my suggestion may not be
>> practical. It
>> >> is important to mention why the comment policy was changed at the
>> same
>> >> time as the IPR policy. There is a legitimate concern about an
>> >> unidentified party seeding an OASIS Standard with ideas protected
>> by
>> >> patents. This kind of thing has actually happened in other
>> Standards
>> >> orgs.
>> >>
>> >> On XACML, we respond directly to the email address provided. Often
>> the
>> >> question is a good candidate for an FAQ, or a hint that the
>> document
>> >> is
>> >> not clear enough. In some cases, comments have been accepted as
>> >> errata.
>> >>
>> >> Hal
>> >>
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org]
>> >> > Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:15 PM
>> >> > To: Hal Lockhart
>> >> > Cc: Carol Geyer; Paul Knight; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>> >> > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Hal Lockhart wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Every TC has a public comment list. Historically, something
>> like
>> >> > > half of the comments are actually questions. I suggest the FAQ
>> >> > > template simply point readers to the public comment list for
>> the
>> >> TC.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Hal
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > For some TCs, historically, something like half (or more) of the
>> >> > "comments" are actually spam. [1]
>> >> >
>> >> > Pointing readers from the TC's FAQ document (template) to the
>> public
>> >> > comment list might not be the optimal solution:
>> >> >
>> >> > a) spam in the comment list archives may suggest to a casual
>> >> > reader that the comment form facility is broken, or otherwise
>> >> > unsiutable as a mean of getting an answer to a question
>> >> >
>> >> > b) some TCs might feel that use of the TC public comment list
>> >> > for Q&A will "screw up our comment tracking" [2]
>> >> >
>> >> > c) asking a question on the TC public comment list involves
>> >> > trying to use a communication channel that has been
>> >> > deliberately crippled by a change in the TC Process [3]
>> >> >
>> >> > I say "crippled" in "c)" because at one time, it was permissible
>> >> > to use the public comment list for general public discussion of
>> the
>> >> > TC work. That allowed someone to ask a question, receive an
>> answer,
>> >> > request a clarification, receive a clarified answer, and so forth
>> >> > (dialogue, discussion). According to the memory of some
>> (including
>> >> > my memory) that was originally the intended purpose of of the
>> >> > comment list. [4]
>> >> >
>> >> > Rules for use of the comment list as a two-way communication
>> >> > channel were changed when the TC Process was altered to read
>> >> > "comment facility", with the stipulation that discussion would
>> >> > not be countenanced; see now TC Process 2.8 TC Visibility"
>> >> > "... a means to collect public comments" ... "The purpose of the
>> >> > TC's public comment facility is to receive comments from the
>> >> > public and is not for public discussion."
>> >> >
>> >> > Use of the comment form instead of direct email opened up
>> >> > a hole for spammers [5], and the TC Chairs seemed not
>> >> > entirely happy with the change [6].
>> >> >
>> >> > Irrespective of the spam problem, which may be fixed by
>> >> > reverting back to email: Questions are clearly different than
>> >> > comments in terms of human communication process.
>> >> >
>> >> > Within OASIS Staff, I am now trying to create consensus around
>> the
>> >> > position that OASIS should support archived, two-way
>> communication
>> >> > (discussion, dialogue) between the TCs and the public. Some
>> >> > TCs use the *-dev lists for common questions; others feel
>> >> > that the *-dev lists should be reserved for technical details
>> >> > of implementation, not for garden-variety questions from
>> >> > interested members of the public who think of themselves as
>> >> > possible users, not as "developers".
>> >> >
>> >> > Robin Cover
>> >> >
>> >> > -----------
>> >> >
>> >> > [1] spammed lists (examples):
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200602/maillist.html
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-enotary-
>> >> > comment/200601/maillist.html
>> >> >
>> >> > [2] Jon Bosak, "Misuse of ubl-comment list
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200410/msg00004.html
>> >> >
>> >> > [3] Whereas originally, according to some versions of history,
>> the
>> >> > TC comment list was *specifically* designed as a mechanism to
>> >> support
>> >> > two-way dialogue and discussion [4], the TC Process change was
>> >> > designed to prevent discussion
>> >> >
>> >> > [4]
>> >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00026.html
>> >> >
>> >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00027.html
>> >> >
>> >> > Jon Bosak: "Actually, the intent of the comment lists *was* to
>> >> provide
>> >> > a forum for public discussion. It's a feature of the OASIS
>> process
>> >> that
>> >> > I've pointed to with pride in presentations to thousands of
>> people
>> >> > over the last couple of years. Guess I'll have to stop doing
>> >> > that. -- Jon
>> >> >
>> >> > Contrast Karl Best:
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200206/msg00003.html
>> >> >
>> >> > "This is supposed to be a one-way pipe to get public comments
>> into
>> >> the
>> >> TC.
>> >> > Admittedly some TCs have stretched this a bit to make them
>> >> discussion
>> >> > lists, which I haven't fought too much against, but the original
>> >> (and
>> >> > true)
>> >> > purpose is comments"
>> >> >
>> >> > [5]
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200312/msg00009.html
>> >> >
>> >> > Norm
>> >> > "I see. Unfortunately, you've also opened a hole into which
>> >> spammers
>> >> > can throw things[1]. And there are plenty of spamming spiders
>> out
>> >> > there smart enough to do so."
>> >> >
>> >> > [6] Comments about the comment form
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Lauren Wood
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00011.html
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Drummond Reed
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00012.html
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Rich Thompson
>> >> >
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00013.html
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Heather Kreger
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00022.html
>> >> >
>> >> > "What's the purpose of excluding any public discussion for TC's?
>> >> > Having a public an TC private list is fairly common practice in
>> >> > other organizations I've been involved in (W3C, JCP) and it was
>> >> > appreciated...
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Rich Thompson
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00023.html
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Drummond Reed
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00024.html
>> >> >
>> >> > "Dropping active public comment lists appears to be a step
>> >> > down in openness. That's generally not a good thing. Are there
>> >> > particular reasons driving the change?"
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Ram Kumar
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00027.html
>> >> >
>> >> > "I 100% agree with Jon. It *was* indeed a great tool for public
>> >> > discusson. I always advised the public whoever I came across..."
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Karl Best
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00028.html
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Robert Philpott
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00030.html
>> >> >
>> >> > "I do worry a bit about not being able to ask follow-up questions
>> >> > without engaging in private email exchanges that should probably
>> >> > be kept public."
>> >> >
>> >> > ** Rex Brooks
>> >> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00067.html
>> >> >
>> >> > ... I have to say that I
>> >> > find the current policy to have, in effect, killed the public
>> >> comment
>> >> > lists, to the detriment of the TCs and OASIS at large at a time
>> when
>> >> > many of us are trying our best to improve the stature of OASIS in
>> >> the
>> >> > arena of standards bodies. This is a shame,...
>> >> >
>> >> > ===
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > From: Carol Geyer [mailto:carol.geyer@oasis-open.org]
>> >> > > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 2:50 PM
>> >> > > > To: 'Paul Knight'; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>> >> > > > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Good point, Paul.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Many Committees, such as the OASIS Security Services TC
>> >> > > (http://www.oasis-
>> >> > > > open.org/committees/security/faq.php), include a statement
>> >> > > > such as "If you have a question that is not answered here,
>> or if
>> >> you
>> >> > > have
>> >> > > > questions or comments on any of the answers provided, feel
>> >> > > > free to contact the editor <link to an email address of a TC
>> >> member
>> >> > > who
>> >> > > > has taken on the responsibility for maintaining the FAQ>."
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > If anyone has other ideas for encouraging reader input to
>> FAQs,
>> >> please
>> >> > > let
>> >> > > > me know.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Carol
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > From: Paul Knight [mailto:paul.knight@nortel.com]
>> >> > > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:37 AM
>> >> > > > To: Carol Geyer; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>> >> > > > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Hi Carol,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Is there any way for FAQ readers to actually ASK a Question?
>> >> (other
>> >> > > than
>> >> > > > the mailing list?) One great frustration with most FAQs is
>> >> > > > that they don't answer the questions people really want to
>> ask,
>> >> > > because
>> >> > > > there is actually no clear way to A a Q.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Regards,
>> >> > > > Paul Knight
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > > > From: Carol Geyer [mailto:carol.geyer@oasis-open.org]
>> >> > > > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:54 AM
>> >> > > > > To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
>> >> > > > > Subject: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > OASIS Committee Chairs:
>> >> > > > > Each OASIS TC is provided with an FAQ page, linked from the
>> >> upper
>> >> > > > > right column of the TC's public homepage. This FAQ is a
>> very
>> >> > > important
>> >> > > > > resource for helping prospective members, press, analysts,
>> and
>> >> OASIS
>> >> > > > > staff better understand your work.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > The OASIS Technical Advisory Board has compiled a list of
>> >> generic
>> >> > > > > questions that provide a basis for all TC FAQs. This is a
>> >> great
>> >> way
>> >> > > to
>> >> > > > > get started writing your FAQ, but naturally, you are free
>> to
>> >> add
>> >> > > > > questions specific to your work. Also, keep in mind that
>> edits
>> >> to
>> >> > > > > posted FAQ can be made at any time.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Please take a moment to review your TC's FAQ page. Send new
>> >> text
>> >> or
>> >> > > > > edits to me, and we'll get them posted as soon as possible.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Again, *all* OASIS Committees should provide information on
>> >> their
>> >> > > FAQ
>> >> > > > > pages. It is particularly crucial for TC's preparing to
>> submit
>> >> work
>> >> > > > > for approval. Press releases announcing new OASIS Standards
>> >> must
>> >> > > > > reference an updated FAQ.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > TAB Recommended Questions:
>> >> > > > >
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/download.php/
>> >> > > > 11675/tab-generic-faq-approved.txt
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Many thanks,
>> >> > > > Carol
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > ______________________________
>> >> > > > Carol Geyer
>> >> > > > Director of Communications
>> >> > > > OASIS
>> >> > > > Voice: +1.978.667.5115 x209
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > OASIS Symposium: The Meaning of Interoperability
>> >> > > > 9-12 May, San Francisco
>> >> > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium_2006/
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> --
>> Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
>> Director, Web Services Standards +1(650)506-1975
>> Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S
>> 4OP9
>> Oracle
>> Redwood Shores, CA 94065
--
Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Web Services Standards +1(650)506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9
Oracle
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]