[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] Gentle reminder to all TCs regarding acknowledging comments during your feedback
Well Peter let's just say then that this Public Discussion List option should be available to any TC that wants it, and assume that if a TC wants it then the Chair is taking responsibility for any burden that it might impose. (Fact is, if I had had it, it would have relieved much of my burder.) I can tell you that the lack of such a list was a hindrance during the development of the SWS specs. The stakeholders for that effort have their own implementers listserv, and it was actually the "interminable" discussions over the course of nearly ten years that led to the draft specification which became the basis for the OASIS work. Of course all of that discussion was "subscription-based". If someone is motivated to join the discussion he/she joins the implementers listserv, and those who join are considered stakeholders. In fact in many cases members of that listserv have as much expertise as (or more than) the TC members. To say "if they are that motivated to engage in the discussion, then they should join the TC" - that may work for some efforts but is not practical in our case. The implementers listserv currently has over 160 subscribers, and most have no interest in joining a formal standards committee. But while they don't participate in a formal committee their intellectual contributions to the effort are invaluable, and many times our TC sought their advice on a matter that had significant implementation implications which TC members were not comfortable addressing in a vacuum - so we initiated discussion on the implementers listerv. And that created a significant burden for me, to try to get that discussion reflected on the OASIS listserv so that we would not violate the IP policy. --Ray From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Ray, I respectfully disagree – comments inline below… Peter From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] > If anything needs changing it is the label "comments list" to "comment > repository" or some such. Yes, some such. The point is, there needs to be a public listserv where TC members can engage in discusion with interested parties who are not members over technical issues before the Committee. [Peter:] Why? There is a danger that individual TC members or editors get sidetracked into interminable discussions with an outside party – if they are that motivated to engage in the discussion, then they should join the TC. If they simply wish to comment, they should trust (and see) that the TC receives and handles their comment with a clear disposition. External parties generally want to know that their PoV has been considered even if rejected. Those who wish to engage in lengthy discussion generally are looking to influence the outcome without taking responsibility for being engaged as a member. Either: - the "comments list" should be a discussion list and provide a means for the Chair to log selected messages to some "comment/resolution" file; or - turn the "comments list" into a "comment/resolution" list that only the Chair can post to, and create a new listserv for each TC for public discussion. [Peter:] How is the OASIS process and IP policy upheld with such a process? Or by “public” do you mean ‘publicly accessible but nonetheless subscription-based”? --Ray Denenberg OASIS SWS TC |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]