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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

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


Subject: Re: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?



On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:54 PM, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:

> Peter,
>
> Clarification - relevant work is being posted to TC documents  
> repository and the mailing list - but those schema and technical  
> documents do not count as meetings and towards the # of qualifying  
> members obviously.

I'm a little unclear here. Various members posting things doesn't  
constitute a TC driving anything. The only way to find out the will of  
a TC is to take a vote. Otherwise its just random people making random  
statements. If a TC is not having meetings and not taking votes, then  
i would argue that its not conducting TC business.

cheers,
-jeff


>
> That was my point - folks are focused on what they are driving  
> technically - and may not even be aware of potential administrative  
> issues that have crept up in the meantime.  Usually however of  
> course one drives the other, eventually you want to publish your  
> good work out for public and member review, etc, but of course  
> delays can occur that can mean these things slip, and that's when  
> early warnings can help.
>
> Thanks, DW
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
> From: "Peter F Brown \(OASIS Individual Member\)"
> <peter-oasis@justbrown.net>
> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 3:21 pm
> To: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <david@drrw.info>
> Cc: <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>, <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>,
> <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com>, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>,
> <eduardo.gutentag@oracle.com>
>
> “I don't understand how good technical work can be done without  
> visibility to OASIS members”
>
> -Unless the work is being conducted elsewhere, away from the  
> spotlight, with the intention to bring it back onto the OASIS radar  
> at a later date after side deals have been made: this would be  
> regrettable and contrary to the spirit (and probably also the  
> letter) of the OASIS TC process
>
> Peter
>
> From: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com [mailto:Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2010 20:58
> To: david@drrw.info
> Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com; dennis.hamilton@acm.org; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org 
> ; MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com;robert_weir@us.ibm.com; eduardo.gutentag@oracle.com
> Subject: Re: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
>
> David
>
> Isn't it obvious to TC members when a TC is not conducting business  
> and thus at risk of being shut down?
>
> Shouldn't the best approach be for the chairs/TC members to arrange  
> some progress and/or meetings of that TC to avoid the problem, or  
> agree to shut down?
>
> - there should be traffic on the list, and presumably either  
> meetings or electronic ballots to advance the work according to the  
> process.
>
> I'm glad to hear work is progressing on rechartering and moving  
> forward with the work you are involved with.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 12:59 PM, ext David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
>
>
> Frederick,
>
> To Martins' point - earlier warning is needed.
>
> We're now in process of adding several new organizational members,  
> refreshing the charter with new dates, and playing catchup here.
>
> We're doing plenty of technical work - but its hard to "see" these  
> administrative items when there's no easy way to view this all.
>
> BTW - might be an idea to look at Kavi being able to automate these  
> things - and send the Chair and Secretary email notices - should not  
> be too tough to program.
>
> Thanks, DW
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
> From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 12:31 pm
> To: <eduardo.gutentag@oracle.com>
> Cc: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <david@drrw.info>,
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>, <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>,
> <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com>, <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>
>
> +1
>
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 6:11 PM, ext Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>
>
> David,
>
> I assume you're talking about the CAM TC, although you never mention  
> it by name; please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> I have a hard time imagining Mary or anybody else in OASIS Staff in  
> the role of the wicked witch of the TCAdmin, so I went digging around.
>
> Section 2.5 of the TC Process says explicitly that "The TC  
> Administrator must close a TC that has completed the deliverables  
> listed in its charter."
>
> The deliverables listed in the CAM TC charter are targeted for 2003.  
> It is now seven years later. If the deliverables were indeed  
> delivered, and you want/need to continue the TC, it's time to  
> recharter, don't you think?. The TC process document explains how to  
> do this. If the deliverables were not delivered, dude, what have you  
> been doing these past seven years? What kind of TC are we talking  
> about?
>
> As regards the TC membership, it is below what the TC process  
> defines as "Minimum Membership" in Section 1, definition m: at least  
> two organizational members among five voting members. What you  
> currently have is less than that. I don't see any twenty people in  
> the roster, and no, observers don't count. Not even non-voting  
> members. Observers are nothing more than mail-list subscribers. They  
> really really really don't count. Truly. The Minimum Membership  
> concept is there to ensure a TC has a reasonable minimum of  
> community or industry support and it is not just the playing ground  
> of one company or individual.
>
> You should also remember that OASIS is one of the least expensive  
> organizations of its type, and it operates on an extremely  
> restricted budget  with an extremely small staff, none of whom is  
> trained in CPR. Asking them to basically resuscitate a TC is quite  
> unrealistic.
>
> As to the role of the OASIS TC admin, it's very simple: it's to  
> ensure that the TC process is being observed by all. If you believe  
> that the TC admin is overstepping his/her role, you can appeal; see  
> Section 4.2, Appeals. If you believe the TC process document should  
> be changed, send email to the Board of Directors (oasis-board-comment@lists.oasis-open.org 
> ) with a concrete proposal.
>
> On 07/16/2010 09:35 PM, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> What I am seeing is the opposite.
>
> The TC wants to continue, the chair wants to continue, there is  
> progress ongoing on new specification work, and for some reason  
> OASIS is rushing to attempt to close the TC - instead of working  
> with the existing members to resolve any procedural issues and keep  
> the work moving forward.
>
> When you have over twenty people on the roster of a TC, with new   
> member organization people joining it hardly counts as an effort  
> that needs to be closed.
>
> This should be simple, instead of OASIS saying sorry - you fail -  
> instead saying OK - we need you to fix these particular items - and  
> we'll remind you if you are slipping behind - before you hit a wall.
>
> I assume Kavi is pushing this stuff at OASIS admin staff - so why  
> can't they just send say simple monthly reminders to chairs instead  
> of waiting until the 50th minute of the 11th hour?
>
> It comes down to the role of OASIS admin - is it to close TCs - or  
> is it to assist TC chairs maintain their work with timely reminders?
>
> Thanks, DW
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
> From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
> Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:38 pm
> To: <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>
> Cc: <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>, "'David RR Webber (XML)'"
> <david@drrw.info>, "'Martin Chapman'" <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@ORACLE.COM>
>
> Oddly, I can't find an example of any closed TC being closed because  
> it missed a deliverable.
>
> All of the cases I see are usually because of lack of activity and  
> ability to maintain an active membership and hold meetings. It tends  
> to be rather stark when a TC runs out of gas, even when there is a  
> heart-beat post to the list every month despite there being no list  
> activity representing work of the TC itself.
>
> In these cases, it appears it is not that a deliverable is late but  
> that a deliverable is not happening and there does not appear to be  
> anything in place to have there be a different outcome.
>
> I am sure that appeals are possible and that might happen (be  
> happening) with any of those TCs which are currently identified as  
> candidates to be closed.
>
> Going back to the post that began this thread, I find it odd that  
> there is any expectation that OASIS is responsible for providing  
> life support. It seems to me that a viable TC will have ample means  
> to demonstrate its sustainability. It is not a very harsh criterion  
> to require an ability to hold regular meetings and maintain a  
> minimal quorum with published minutes as evidence of continuing  
> health. Determining that there is meaningful forward progress is  
> harder. Evidently the defection of participants from an unproductive  
> effort provides an easier and more-decisive indicator, making  
> trickier and subjective inspection for forward progress less  
> necessary. I have not seen a deadline reached on time in any TC I am  
> involved in, and I am yet to see any raised eyebrows from OASIS so  
> long as it has been obvious that we have been moving forward with a  
> prospect of convergence on a result.
>
> I am currently an official of a TC that is borderline in one aspect:  
> we have exactly 5 Voting Members and there have been times when  
> there were fewer. But there have been regular quorate  
> teleconferences at least monthly as long as I have been a member. At  
> the same time, we completed a 60-day Public Review of three inter- 
> related and mostly-new documents in May, we are processing comments  
> and making important improvements to those documents for a second 15- 
> day public review later this summer, and I expect we will achieve  
> Committee Specification status shortly after that. In the short time  
> I have been a member, I don't recall seeing a TC Closure e-mail from  
> the TC Administrator.
>
> I'd say that the case I have in mind is the least sustainable size  
> for an OASIS TC activity and having such a small community of active  
> participants is less than ideal. We are probably a marginal and  
> borderline effort, whatever one might consider to be the worthiness  
> of the work. I say it is noteworthy that OASIS is so tolerant of  
> something so specialized and of limited attention in the world that  
> five of us are able to soldier on and provide material deliverables  
> that pass public scrutiny.
>
> The cut-off conditions that OASIS TCs operate under are, in my  
> analysis and experience, quite generous.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 14:31
> To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org; 'David RR Webber (XML)'; 'Martin  
> Chapman'
> Subject: RE: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
>
> We are very fortunate that we have some very nice and reasonable TC  
> Admins
> today, and they are are not closing TCs just because they missed a
> deliverable by a week. I'll grant you that point. But you must grant  
> me
> that the process, as written today, explicitly permits TCs to be  
> closed
> purely for that reason. That is my concern.
>
> By all means we need a way to prune out abandoned TCs. I have nothing
> against that. But personal I wonder whether the criteria, as written  
> are
> overly-broad and the checks and balances absent? I think this would be
> fairly easy to address in some future revision of the TC Policy. If  
> a TC
> has truly been abandoned or is moving in circles or aimlessly, then it
> probably doesn't hurt anyone if we had some safeguards that turned  
> this
> from a one-person kill clause to a lightweight procedure that  
> guaranteed
> the opportunity for stakeholder and member feedback over, say a 30-day
> period.
>
> Nothing urgent, just something to consider.
>
> -Rob
>
> "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote on 07/16/2010
> 04:32:24 PM:
>
> >
> > Well, before we get too carried away about the speculative hazards
> > of tyrannical TC Administrators, I have some anecdotal data-points  
> on
> this.
> >
> > There are a number of OASIS TCs that are definitely inactive in the
> > sense that there is nothing happening with documents, there is no
> > activity on the list, and there is no indication of meetings in a
> > considerable time. This also includes situations where the chair
> > keeps scheduling calls that don't happen for one reason or another
> > (and cancelling others for one reason or another).
> >
> > I have also reviewed mailing lists (as part of wanting to know the
> > status of work that I was checking on) and observed inquiries from
> > the TC Administrator to determine whether the committee is really
> > active or is it ready to be closed. My impression is that there is
> > nothing precipitate about the closing of a TC and that it is not
> > undertaken lightly. Also, these inquiries don't happen until there
> > has been a prolonged period of inactivity - more like years, not
> > months, and action is not immediate or precipitate even then. It
> > appears that there not only has to be no life in the corpse, it has
> > to be overgrown with weeds and returned to dust. Even for
> > committees which, it seemed to me, were/are really nothing but one-
> > man bands (zombie TCs?), the TC administrator is very cautious.
> >
> > I conclude that there is no trip wire or time bomb by which a TC,
> > once constituted, flushes down the drain like a "dunk me" target at
> > a summer amusement park. That's true of all of the cases I've
> > researched. I have at one time or another reviewed every OASIS TC
> > that has produced an OASIS Standard in this century, along with many
> > that never will (because the need the standard was intended to serve
> > has disappeared or been satisfied another way, because the standards
> > are published in a different venue, or because the TC has a purpose
> > in which achieving an OASIS Standard is not the primary goal).
> >
> > - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 12:23
> > To: Martin Chapman
> > Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org; David RR Webber (XML)
> > Subject: RE: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
> >
> > Just looking at the relevant clause:
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#closingTC
> >
> > In full it says:
> >
> > "The TC Administrator may close a TC that fails to conduct at  
> least one
> > Quorate Meeting or conduct any Specification Ballots during any six
> month
> > period; whose membership falls below the Minimum Membership; which  
> has
> not
> > completed its deliverables within the schedule listed in its  
> Charter; or
>
> > which has failed to show progress towards achieving its purpose as
> defined
> > by its Charter."
> >
> > I'd wonder what % of OASIS TCs actually complete their deliverables
> within
> > the schedule they predicted at the time they chartered it? I bet  
> it is
> > quite small. Nothing special about OASIS. Schedule estimation is  
> hard
> in
> > general and we all tend to be overly optimistic. But regardless, one
> > man's "lack of progress" is another man's "deliberate pace with
> consensus
> > building". Some of the best breakthroughs come after "lack of
> progress",
> > including good stuff worth waiting for, Hopefully we're not  
> triggering
> TC
> > closures based on those criteria very often.
> >
> > I realize that this is always going to be a judgement call, and  
> you want
>
> > to look at the totality of the facts and circumstances. So I'm
> surprised
> > that this decision can be made by a single TC Admin. I would have
> thought
> > that there would be at least some minimum notification time, comment
> > period, access to a Board appeal, etc. Closing a TC -- absent  
> approval
> of
> > the TC members -- does not feel like an administrative action to  
> me on
> par
> > with sending out the announcement of a public review, or  
> conducting a
> > committee specification ballot. It sounds like a far graver action,
> which
> > should have some more checks and balances behind it.
> >
> > My personal opinion, of course.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > Martin Chapman <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@ORACLE.COM> wrote on 07/16/2010  
> 12:22:59
> > PM:
> >
> > >
> > > So what is the exit strategy for your TC?
> > > IMHO, the only way to avoid these automatic shutdowns is for every
> > > charter to be explicit enough so that TC members themselves can
> > > declare victory and shut themselves down. Also the criteria isn’t
> > > that onerous: maintain minimum membership (I’m sure temporary  
> lapses
> > > are tolerable), and hold a quorate meeting every six months!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Martin.
> > >
> > >
> > > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
> > > Sent: 16 July 2010 12:58
> > > To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: [chairs] When is a TCs work done?
> > >
> > > I'm reminded of the maxim in any good initial business plan  
> asking -
> > > what is the exit strategy?
> > >
> > > Seems that OASIS has criteria based mainly around number of emails
> > > posted, who's posting them (apart from the TC chair) and how many
> > > meetings and minutes you have posted.
> > >
> > > As TC chairs however - I think we deserve more support than OASIS
> > > hitting our TC with FUD messages to bolster continuation of the
> > > technical work.
> > >
> > > Several members I recently canvassed told me they would like to do
> > > more than observer but their company is restricting hours and
> > > requiring formal manager approval and justification for any new TC
> > > related work - even just reading emails or joining a group. Given
> > > those types of challenges its little wonder that typical TC work  
> is
> > > being driven by just a handful of individuals.
> > >
> > > OASIS needs to therefore do more in terms of assisting garnering
> > > support for our work. So for example - one simple thing I notice
> > > that is misleading - is that Kavi only shows voting members - what
> > > should be shown also is the total number of observers (just the
> > > count), and non-voting members underneath that also on the whole
> roster.
> > >
> > > Clearly TC chairs have a huge role in continuing work of a TC. In
> > > the lifecycle of a standard it is way more than just calling
> > > meetings, writing specifications and publishing schema.
> > >
> > > Rather than FUD messages from OASIS staff to our TC - we need more
> > > informal coordination to help with members who may be  
> contemplating
> > > contributing - or just testing the pulse = looking to help get  
> more
> > > involvement and so on by working with the TC chairs and reaching  
> out
> > > to potential new resources.
> > >
> > > Also - chairs usually know way more about what is really going on.
> > > The mailing list only tells one small part of the picture - in  
> terms
> > > of what is external parties are doing, or planning to do with a
> > > specification, or additional potential resources to advance new  
> work.
> > >
> > > The current administrative door slamming by OASIS seems to be  
> based
> > > solely on reducing the number of TCs to some acceptable lower  
> number
> > > - rather than any rationale based on the importance of work - and
> > > need to actively foster and help TC chairs gain support either
> > > within their TC or with external industry groups or academic
> > > institutes who may benefit or contribute further.
> > >
> > > Everyone is burned out of course on standards work - and its now
> > > layers of burn out over burn out. Now in tough economic days it
> > > seems that bean counting and ROI have totally taken over the
> > > equation of specification development - rather than anything else
> > > relating to technical value and incubating potential  
> groundbreaking
> > > or interesting XML capabilities within OASIS.
> > >
> > > Ironically the small independent members would appear to be those
> > > that have the most flexibility to continue OASIS work and yet  
> OASIS
> > > itself it set to penalize them for trying!
> > >
> > > Thanks, DW
> >
>
>
> -- 
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Eduardo Gutentag | Director, Standards Strategy & Policy
> Phone: +1 510 550 4616 | Fax: +1 510 550 4616 | SMS: +1 510 681 6540
> Oracle Corporate Architecture Group
> 5op334, 500 Oracle Parkway, | Redwood Shores, California 94065
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing  
> practices and products that help protect the environment
>
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065











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