RE: [dita] Re: Meeting Request: Issues About OASIS and OASIS-Approved Publications

["Tony Self" <tself@hyperwrite.com>]

Hi everyone

I just want to pick up on Chuck's thoughts. It's not true to say that the
Guide doesn't represent the consensus of the subcommittee. The subcommittee
have collectively worked on this document, and collectively agreed to submit
it to the TC. There hasn't even been a murmur of discontent with the Guide
at any subcommittee meeting, or on the mailing list. I don't think it should
be characterised as a collection of individual views.

Tony Self
Chair, DITA Help Subcommittee


-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Allen [mailto:chucka@hrinterop.org] 
Sent: Thursday, 19 March 2009 12:12 PM
To: Su-Laine Yeo; Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Michael Priestley;
stan@modularwriting.com; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org;
dita@lists.oasis-open.org; tony.self@hyperwrite.com;
dita-adoption@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] Re: Meeting Request: Issues About OASIS and
OASIS-Approved Publications

One would think there is a balance of interests that can be found.

I don't think this has to be complicated. What if you were to take the
subcommittee's name off of the cover, list the names of the actual
contributors, and put in the disclaimer that the work represents the
research and judgment of the contributors and that it does not
necessarily represent a consensus of the subcommittee? Isn't this the
truth? Assuming the exercise of preparing this content was approved by
the subcommittee to begin with and everyone had the opportunity to
participate in the process, I would hope that this would strike the
right balance.

Based on the type of document and considering that the content by its
very nature isn't particularly stable, I tend to agree that it
shouldn't have been put forward for TC approval. This is not to say
that the doc isn't useful or that OASIS committee and subcommittee
participants shouldn't have the means to communicate practical
information related to standards adoption and implementation.

I confess to ignorance and laziness in not knowing or bothering to
look up what OASIS's policies are, but it seems to me that many
Consortia have policies under which practical information related to a
standard (e.g., non-consensus "guidance" documents, adopter case
studies, notes, and the like) can be published providing there is a
bit of due process, equal opportunity to participate, and the proper
disclaimer as to the fact that the particular document isn't normative
and doesn't represent a consensus of the particular group.

Chuck Allen







On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Su-Laine Yeo
<su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com> wrote:
> Hi Mary and everyone,
>
>
>
> It's been an interesting past few weeks. Below I've tried to summarize
some
> *potential* issues in publishing OASIS guides to technologies. Not all of
> these apply to any discussions we've had about this particular guide,
> however I think it is useful to put them on the table as hypothetical
issues
> for purposes of formulating and clarifying OASIS's general policies on the
> publishing of technology guides under its name.
>
>
>
> - The public might perceive that the products associated with subcommittee
> TC members are given more prominence than the products of non-members, and
> consider OASIS to be less credible as a result.
>
> - Vendors whose products have not been included in the guide might
complain
> that they didn't receive adequate notice about the fact that the document
> was being written, and didn't have a fair chance to have their products
> considered for inclusion.
>
> - Useful information about a product might be omitted from a guide in
order
> to make it more palatable to the product vendor who holds a vote on
whether
> to accept or reject the guide.
>
> - Claims about a particular product may turn out to be false advertising.
If
> false advertising appears in content published by OASIS, who is
responsible
> for it?
>
> - Is it a good use of TC time and energy to try to evaluate a technology
> guide written by a subcommittee?
>
> - Can a TC provide a meaningful approval of a technology guide written by
a
> subcommittee if TC members do not have access to some of technologies
> described in the guide?
>
>
>
> Again, not all of these issues have come up in the discussion about this
> particular guide, but these are the types of things that I think are
useful
> to put on the table for purpose of formulating OASIS policy.
>
>
>
> I also want to echo Kris Eberlein’s sentiment appreciating the effort that
> has been put into this guide so far by Help SC members. Much of the
> information the Help SC has produced is useful to the public; the question
> we are trying to address is if and how the OASIS name should be associated
> with it.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Su-Laine
>
>
>
> Su-Laine Yeo
> Interaction Design Specialist
>
> JustSystems Canada, Inc.
> Office: 778-327-6356
> syeo@justsystems.com
>
> www.justsystems.com
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:34 AM
> To: Michael Priestley; stan@modularwriting.com
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org;
> tony.self@hyperwrite.com
> Subject: RE: [dita] Re: Meeting Request: Issues About OASIS and
> OASIS-Approved Publications
>
>
>
> Where angels fear ...
>
>
>
> Since my organization is a DITA adopter rather than potential competitor
in
> the vendor space serving adopters, maybe I can dare to be a bit more
> forthright.
>
>
>
> Representatives of member organizations meet on committees and
subcommittees
> in a cooperative spirit to establish standards, guidelines, etc. to the
> mutual benefit of all.
>
>
>
> Might another organization enter such a committee (or view its work and
> membership from the outside) and construe that cooperative spirit as
> collusion among an anti-competitive cabal?
>
>
>
> Surely in the full breadth of OASIS such issues have arisen before and
been
> addressed. As one possible approach, is "mutual benefit" defined in the
> broadest sense somewhere in the OASIS umbrella such that no one can
construe
> it in a narrow, exclusionary sense, and can a TC or SC point to that
> umbrella definition should the issue arise?
>
>
>
>     /Bruce Nevin
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:01 PM
> To: stan@modularwriting.com
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org;
> tony.self@hyperwrite.com
> Subject: Re: [dita] Re: Meeting Request: Issues About OASIS and
> OASIS-Approved Publications
>
> Hi Stan,
>
> To clarify, I don't think anyone suggested that an OASIS member
organization
> would sue another OASIS member organization. The question was, are there
any
> concerns about a group of OASIS member organizations writing about the
> products of other companies (or writing about some products but not
others,
> for that matter).
>
> So much for not characterizing the issues in writing :-) But I wanted to
> correct the characterization of the chit-chat anyway.
>
> Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
> Lead IBM DITA Architect
> mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
> http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
>
> stan@modularwriting.com
>
> 03/18/2009 01:23 PM
>
> To
>
> mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
>
> cc
>
> dita@lists.oasis-open.org, tony.self@hyperwrite.com
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [dita] Re: Meeting Request: Issues About OASIS and OASIS-Approved
> Publications
>
>
>
>
> Hi Mary --
>
> Spring is in the air. With chit-chat about OASIS member organizations
being
> open to suing other OASIS member organizations and OASIS individual
members,
> it may not be prudent for any individual to characterize the issues in
> writing (hence the intentional vagueness in my previous email).
>
> Perhaps the best course would be to have the TC next Tuesday "approve" the
> minutes of our meeting yesterday, thereby providing an appropriate
starting
> place for defining the issues pertinent to the meeting that we'd like to
> organize with you.
>
> Sorry ... I wish that it were as simple as summarizing the explicit points
> of debate.
>
> Stan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mary McRae"
> To: stan@modularwriting.com
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org, tony.self@hyperwrite.com
> Subject: [dita] Re: Meeting Request: Issues About OASIS and OASIS-Approved
> Publications
> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:12:04 -0400
>
> Hi Stan,
>
>  It would be most helpful if you could provide the list of issues in
advance
> so I can make sure to have the right people involved - once I have a
better
> idea I can look at schedules and see what will work for everyone.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mary
>
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 8:34 PM, <stan@modularwriting.com> wrote:
> Hi Mary --
>
> In the process of reviewing the DITA Help Technologies Guide (attached),
the
> DITA Technical Committee bumped into some issues -- some potentially legal
> -- that are beyond the scope of our TC. We suspect (and hope) that other
TCs
> or working groups in OASIS have encountered and resolved such issues.
>
> We are hoping that you could set up a concall next week with you and with
> the following DITA people:
> - su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com
> - tony.self@hyperwrite.com
> - Micheal Priestley
> - Don Day
> - Stan Doherty
>
> Two goals for the meeting --
> 1. Review the issues.
> 2. Identify from the OASIS side of things possible precedents, resources,
> and solution strategies
>
> Thanks,
> Stan Doherty
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mary P McRae
> Manager of TC Administration, OASIS
> mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> voip: 603.232.9090
>
>



-- 
Chuck Allen,
Founder, HR-XML, HRInterop.org
+1 919 247 6881
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.hrinterop.org
A laser focus on HR services Interoperability
-----------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php