Re: [chairs] TGF Minutes Report

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Interested readers will note that Peter continues to:

1) Attack me personally rather than address the merits.

2) Rules are for "next" time (we have rules for this situation now).

3) Interoperability is no longer a characteristic of standards. That's
the fool's errand.

4) You might want to ask yourself why someone would want a
non-standard to have a standards label from OASIS? (think PAS)

Hope everyone is having a great day!

Patrick

On 04/24/2013 11:56 AM, Peter F Brown wrote:
> Paul, With all due respect: there are *already* several standards
> adopted that are "a different kind of work". It would have been a
> fool's errand on the part of the TC to go through the whole process
> only to realize on the last home stretch, "oops, this isn't
> right!". The TGF TC looked to precedence to guide it's work.
> 
> The fact is that there are no requirements for something to be a
> Standard that are different from something to be considered as a
> Committee Specification. The relevant provisions of 2(18)(8)(a)
> apply equally to Public Review, Committee Specification, and
> Standard. That may well be an issue: I have always and consistently
> argued that there ought to be a difference between approving
> something as a Committee Specification and a Standard - but the
> only difference we have today is a member-wide ballot on a proposed
> Standard. On that one point, Patrick is right.
> 
> However, I do not believe that it is "bonne guerre" to use the last
> couple of days of a two week ballot as a whipping boy for a
> perceived shortcoming in the overall process. If Patrick felt
> passionately about this, he would have consistently argued the case
> at the Public Review stage of this, and every other "offending"
> draft spec. - he has not; Or in his capacity as a member of the
> Technical Advisory Board - which he has not done; or in his
> capacity as a Liaison from JTC 1/SC34. He has stated very clearly
> that he has full authority in the position but has only chosen to
> exercise it in a last minute campaign against a single ballot
> rather than address the systemic issue he claims to be supporting.
> 
> Thankfully, this incident has generated plenty of useful and
> thoughtful contributions to the debate that we are due to have at
> the next Board meeting - a debate that I asked for before and
> independently of the current ballot.
> 
> Many thanks for your, and many other, helpful comments and
> constructive responses.
> 
> Best regards, Peter
> 
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] Sent: Wednesday, 24
> April, 2013 08:38 To: Chet Ensign Cc: Peter F Brown; Patrick
> Durusau; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [chairs] TGF
> Minutes Report
> 
> Chet
> 
> Thanks very much for your clearly thought through note. I think
> that the TC process as written is not 100% clear. My personal
> reading of the TC process clearly differs from yours. I'm unwilling
> to say that mine is right and yours is wrong: I think there are
> different goals and there is clearly a goal here by the TGF TC to
> attempt to standardize a different kind of work than has previously
> been in OASIS. I can see why you support that because there is
> clearly excellent work that has gone into this document and I
> really applaud what the TC has done in moving forward this area.
> 
> However, my own personal view is that the TC process should be
> modified if OASIS wishes to support this kind of work. I think
> trying to approve it as a standard given the current TC process is
> stretching the process and one concern is that the stretch points
> might well be used by future TCs that ARE interoperable standards.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> On 24 April 2013 14:39, Chet Ensign
> <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org<mailto:chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>>
> wrote: Good morning Paul (and chairs),
> 
> Well, good morning here in the US east coast anyway. Thanks for
> your note - it has triggered some thoughts:
> 
> - "or the TC process needs to be modified to support this kind of
> work product" - I plan to raise this idea with the Board's process
> committee. I'm thrilled that work like this and PMRM and ID-Cloud
> and other non-code projects are at OASIS. We do need to consider
> modifications to make the fit better. Not sure what those might be
> yet - I'll be looking at practices in other organizations to see
> what other models are out there.
> 
> - "three fo the five statements of use do not follow the
> prescription..." - The wording of SoUs being submitted to TCs was
> raised with me last month (I think) and since then I have been
> working with TCs to make sure that wording is proper. If I went
> back before that, I would find SoUs in a number of TCs that one way
> or the other didn't conform to some detail. As a general principal,
> I don't make it a practice to go back and retroactively change my
> practice with TCs. In my judgement, the SoUs for TGF are within the
> scope of the prevailing practice of the time.
> 
> - "reading the TC conformance clauses and the part of the process I
> quoted, I believe that it has stretched the meaning of those to
> limits..." - hence again the need to review the TC Process to look
> for opportunities for improvement. Let me also say that the TGF TC
> has worked patiently and persistently with me to conform to
> anything I asked of them. Their work complies with the requirements
> of the TC Process to my satisfaction.
> 
> I really want to see OASIS be a good home for work like this. It is
> needed. I really like the way David Webber phrased it in another
> message: "OASIS needs tools beyond middleware XML that inform and
> empower organizations to build better processes for developing
> solutions. The marketplace is looking to standards organizations to
> provide this guidance." I think we can be a great platform for work
> like that and this debate has really helped to elevate the issues
> that we need to consider so that we can make the fit work better.
> 
> Again Paul, thanks for your note. It has helped me crystalize my
> thinking.
> 
> Best,
> 
> /chet
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Paul Fremantle
> <paul@wso2.com<mailto:paul@wso2.com>> wrote: Peter
> 
> I understand the challenges that you went through and they lead me
> to question whether:
> 
> * either, the particular work product was not ideal for OASIS, * or
> the OASIS TC process needs to be modified to support this kind of
> work product.
> 
> Certainly reading the TC conformance clauses and the part of the
> process I quoted, I believe that it has stretched the meaning of
> those to limits which I don't think were intended when the process
> was written. For example, I note that three of the five statements
> of use do not follow the prescription of "stating whether its use
> included the interoperation of multiple independent
> implementations.".
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 24 April 2013 02:22, Peter F Brown
> <peter@peterfbrown.com<mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com>> wrote: Paul, 
> It should be no surprise. CS Transform handed over their original
> work to the TC as a formal "Contribution" that served to bootstrap
> the whole endeavor. Several people with whom they worked wanted to
> be parties to the work's further development in OASIS. I think that
> it is quite common for new TC's who bring new members to OASIS to
> be involved with a key sponsor of the work. The important thing is
> that any OASIS member can join any TC - and many did, like myself,
> who had no prior knowledge of or affiliation with CS Transform. I
> found the work challenging in terms of the OASIS process - which is
> historically designed to work with technical and directly
> implementable specifications (and which possibly is at the origin
> of some of Patrick's concerns - but we ensured that the process was
> respected in every detail. The proposal may not be to everyone's
> liking but to claim as Patrick does that we have somehow "broken
> the rules" is simply not true.
> 
> Thanks for taking a detailed look at the work and I hope that you
> can support it Best regards, Peter
> 
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com<mailto:paul@wso2.com>] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 23 April, 2013 17:53 To: Patrick Durusau Cc:
> chairs@lists.oasis-open.org<mailto:chairs@lists.oasis-open.org> 
> Subject: Re: [chairs] TGF Minutes Report
> 
> One thing that I find interesting is in relation to this aspect of
> the TC process.
> 
> The TC process states: ""Statement of Use", with respect to a
> Committee Specification, is a written statement that a party has
> successfully used or implemented that specification in accordance
> with all or some of its conformance clauses specified in Section
> 2.18<https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#specQuality>,
> identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use
> included the interoperation of multiple independent
> implementations."
> 
> With regard to the five statements of use:
> 
> One of the SOU's comes from CS Transform (whose CEO is one of the
> editors). Two more come from clients of CS Transform.
> 
> Two are not linked (as far as I know) to CS Transform.
> 
> In addition the Chair is a retired employee of CS Transform.
> 
> If this was an interoperability standard with a requirement for
> multiple independent implementations I would be questioning the
> independence of at least 3 of the 5 statements of use. But its
> not.
> 
> Paul
> 
> On 24 April 2013 00:23, Patrick Durusau
> <patrick@durusau.net<mailto:patrick@durusau.net>> wrote: 
> Greetings!
> 
> I did promise to review the TGF minutes for discussion of
> conformance.
> 
> As part of that review, note that file: TCminutes2013_02_21.rtf
> has the correct date but the document has the header: "Meeting 21
> March 2013" but refers to the minutes of 17th of January for
> approval. So the file name is correct, but the heading in the file
> is wrong.
> 
> The TGF TC did discuss conformance clauses, but in 2011. Look at 
> IssuesList-2011-12-14.xlsx to find the notes.
> 
> While the wording of the conformance clauses is discussed, the
> issues that I raised of allowing *any* model were not.
> 
> For the various posts following my initial one, I would note that
> no one had addressed the merits of my objection.
> 
> As several of the posts have made clear, the timing of these 
> objections is not an issue. The TC would have dismissed them and
> we would be exactly where we are today.
> 
> Only the vote of OASIS members controls the quality of OASIS
> standards.
> 
> Are you an "any model" OASIS member?
> 
> If not, vote no.
> 
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- Paul Fremantle CTO and Co-Founder, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair,
> VP, Apache Synapse
> 
> UK: +44 207 096 0336<tel:%2B44%20207%20096%200336> US: +1 646 595
> 7614<tel:%2B1%20646%20595%207614>
> 
> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org 
> twitter.com/pzfreo<http://twitter.com/pzfreo> 
> paul@wso2.com<mailto:paul@wso2.com>
> 
> wso2.com<http://wso2.com> Lean Enterprise Middleware
> 
> Disclaimer: This communication may contain privileged or other
> confidential information and is intended exclusively for the
> addressee/s. If you are not the intended recipient/s, or believe
> that you may have received this communication in error, please
> reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you
> received and in addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit,
> disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained in this
> communication. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be
> timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept
> liability for any errors or omissions.
> 
> 
> 
> -- Paul Fremantle CTO and Co-Founder, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair,
> VP, Apache Synapse
> 
> UK: +44 207 096 0336<tel:%2B44%20207%20096%200336> US: +1 646 595
> 7614<tel:%2B1%20646%20595%207614>
> 
> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org 
> twitter.com/pzfreo<http://twitter.com/pzfreo> 
> paul@wso2.com<mailto:paul@wso2.com>
> 
> wso2.com<http://wso2.com> Lean Enterprise Middleware
> 
> Disclaimer: This communication may contain privileged or other
> confidential information and is intended exclusively for the
> addressee/s. If you are not the intended recipient/s, or believe
> that you may have received this communication in error, please
> reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you
> received and in addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit,
> disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained in this
> communication. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be
> timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept
> liability for any errors or omissions.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> /chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards
> Development and TC Administration OASIS: Advancing open standards
> for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org
> 
> Primary: +1 973-996-2298<tel:%2B1%20973-996-2298> Mobile: +1
> 201-341-1393<tel:%2B1%20201-341-1393>
> 
> Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html
>
>  TC Administration information and support is available at
> http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin
> 
> Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:    http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:
> http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:
> http://facebook.com/oasis.open
> 
> 
> 
> -- Paul Fremantle CTO and Co-Founder, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair,
> VP, Apache Synapse
> 
> UK: +44 207 096 0336 US: +1 646 595 7614
> 
> blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org 
> twitter.com/pzfreo<http://twitter.com/pzfreo> 
> paul@wso2.com<mailto:paul@wso2.com>
> 
> wso2.com<http://wso2.com> Lean Enterprise Middleware
> 
> Disclaimer: This communication may contain privileged or other
> confidential information and is intended exclusively for the
> addressee/s. If you are not the intended recipient/s, or believe
> that you may have received this communication in error, please
> reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you
> received and in addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit,
> disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained in this
> communication. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be
> timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept
> liability for any errors or omissions.
> 

- -- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJReAS7AAoJEBerZNWIP55sHZUH/11px09M/m1N61G4CpEeNL8r
QkLCXITCuUPK4LqoPGmY2ISVOve1KVF0f/qRBSBm8opiNGj/zNPf3WsWdgkLruf6
sX/O1qK1c+2uZCUGm/uMpyVq5kdFGvbRHTS/2ZCPuVydVlVtT9/fXwR0gOzArJOX
8GT4oa930S2R5utpQy7t2waLa4N21LEzmnMv+EkNiu3Hz2FMP/0maXrbhhw3mVAD
QGjLVHV+ddviyahbhssnGvjEsSINlsEIb32j/7kjhYHGh5bwnQHMAOTzb8V67SB1
qkzvwNInVti/3rCch8b0cqI6oJgq7kO36ihw/KSKElFHznmoRUCXbwI/Ps6tX2Q=
=1Lyj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----