[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]