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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency-msg message

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


Subject: Fw: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP and attribute-free encodings...


 Art,

 To put a point on it I don't really "care" what "...your friends and
 associates" have "...told you," I only care about what this committee DOES.
If you and your apostles want to whine to one another about what you
perceive as an obvious rejection of your superior attitude that's your
right, but in this case you're a singular voice in a wilderness of your own
making. No one else on the committee, who has been dumb enough to wade into
this cesspool of a dialogue, seems to support your position so I'd be taking
that to heart.

Frankly, based on your continual and divisive polemics, I don't see you
wanting ANYTHING to work vis a vis the committee; quite the contrary as a
matter of fact, and this can only be viewed as puzzling. You insist on
turning open discussion and reasoned council into personal attacks based on
irrelevant issues, when the facts being discussed have nothing to do with
personality, and only require a bit of intellectual discipline to insure the
quality of work we produce is significant. You are certainly entitled to
voice your personality-based likes and dislikes in a proper forum, but this
ain't it. For the last time please get off the "horse you rode in on" and
let the process and the committee do its work.

 Rick
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Art Botterell" <acb@incident.com>
> To: "CONSULTRAC" <rcarlton@consultrac.com>; "R. Allen Wyke"
> <emergency-tc@earthlink.net>
> Cc: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Karl F. Best"
> <karl.best@oasis-open.org>; "Scott McGrath" <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP and
> attribute-free encodings...
>
>
> > Rick, I'm not sure how you think you know everything my friends and
> > associates have told me.  (Unless you're speaking only about your own
> > earlier notes, which I'll confess I didn't take as either polite or
> > friendly.)
> >
> > As for why I'd suggest that it might be time for a change... I'll
> > point out that it was Allen himself who was complaining about the
> > TC's workproduct so far.  My motive, since you raise the question, is
> > the same as yours: I want the TC to work effectively to produce
> > quality product.  And I believe leadership is a crucial factor in
> > that.
> >
> > Certainly I don't see any reason why technical issues would be
> > legitimate for debate but organizational ones would somehow be
> > verboten.
> >
> > - Art
> >
> >
> >
> > At 12:39 PM -0800 3/26/04, CONSULTRAC wrote:
> > >Art,
> > >
> > >I am simply unable to fathom your inability to understand the nature of
> the
> > >"facts on the ground."
> > >
> > >To Whit:
> > >
> > >1. CAP 1.0 is DONE and out for vote. It will be ratified, or not,
> depending
> > >on consensus within the organization, and according to its procedural
> codes.
> > >No comment, act, or implication I have seen in any message traffic
> suggests
> > >otherwise. Therefore, in my view, your concerns over the potential
> > >"hijacking" of the initiative are unfounded and needlessly obstructive
to
> > >good order and discipline. Let the process work.
> > >
> > >2. Why do you insist on making this a "me and them" evolution? No one
is
> > >taking YOU to task. NO one has suggested that YOU, or the SC's work, is
> > >fundamentally flawed. NO one has suggested that there is no value in
the
> > >work done to date, or that it did not deserve to be offered for
> > >ratification. By its nature standards-setting is progressive and
> > >evolutionary. CAP 1.0 is a starting, not an ending, point.
> > >
> > >3. Why would you suggest that the leadership be changed? How is such a
> > >demand justifiable? Have you not benefited from that leadership? Is the
> CAP
> > >spec not out based on consensus vote in spite of the Chair's personal
> > >concerns? Is the Chair the only individual now offering substantive
> > >criticism? In the latter case, certainly not. In the former; CAP IS out
> for
> > >OASIS vote, in addition to the fact that your SC always received the
> support
> > >it asked for, and did throughout the entirety of the spec's formative
> > >process. To suggest otherwise is to simply be in denial, for reasons
that
> > >are apparently unknowable.
> > >
> > >4. Why is it impossible for you to turn loose of this bone? One has to
> > >wonder what motivates the level and energy behind your continual
> rhetoric.
> > >All the committee cares about is the quality and usefulness of the
final
> > >product at every stage of its progression, and its value will be
decided
> by
> > >the organization through its standing voting mechanisms, rather than by
> the
> > >committee. Factually, then, it is out of "our" hands.
> > >
> > >You have been repeatedly and politely counseled by your friends, and
> > >professional associates, that this argumentative tack is destructive
and
> > >uncompelling. Why do you persist in defending a position that does not
> need
> > >defending, and serves no purpose beyond making everyone's life
miserable.
> WE
> > >are trying to WORK TOGETHER, while you on the other hand appear to be
> stuck
> > >on a message that "only Art's views are valid." If that is the case,
then
> > >you are being both disrespectful and ignorant of the motivations, and
> > >intellectual quality, of your committee associates. These are smart
> people
> > >with long experience. If I were you I'd listen a bit more to what
> everyone's
> > >trying to say to you. Believe me, in my experience, the ultimate
product
> > >will be a much better one at every stage of its life cycle. And since
no
> one
> > >has any intention of moving in with anyone else, the final product is
the
> > >only component that counts.
> > >
> > >Rick
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Art Botterell" <acb@incident.com>
> > >To: "R. Allen Wyke" <emergency-tc@earthlink.net>
> > >Cc: <emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Karl F. Best"
> > ><karl.best@oasis-open.org>; "Scott McGrath"
> <scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org>
> > >Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:59 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP and
> > >attribute-free encodings...
> > >
> > >
> > >>  Allen -
> > >>
> > >>  Robert's Rules stress the importance of an impartial Chair: "If the
> > >>  chairman has even the appearance of being a partisan, he loses much
> > >>  of his ability to control those who are on the opposite side of the
> > >>  question. There is nothing to justify the unfortunate habit some
> > >>  chairmen have of constantly speaking on questions before the
> > >>  assembly, even interrupting the member who has the floor. One who
> > >>  expects to take an active part in debate should never accept the
> > >>  chair, or at least should not resume the chair, after having made
his
> > >>  speech, until after the pending question is disposed of." (Art. X)
> > >>
> > >>  Nonetheless, we've welcomed your many vigorous contributions to the
> > >>  debate, when they were made in the appropriate venue, and at the
> > >>  appropriate time.  But I believe that the very intensity of your
> > >>  opinions have made it impossible for you to serve effectively in the
> > >>  Chair.  (The same certainly would be true of me, but I have no such
> > >>  aspirations.)
> > >>
> > >>  As to your various concerns... we've been working on CAP for a year
> > >>  now, including seven months at the TC level.  Anyone who reviews the
> > >>  record will see that you've had... and taken... plenty of
opportunity
> > >>  to make your case.  But there has to be a point where the debate
ends
> > >>  and the majority rules.  The TC voted... repeatedly, in fact... to
> > >>  advance CAP 1.0 and hold over the remaining issues for the next
cycle.
> > >>
> > >>  And although you deny that the intent of your public statements,
made
> > >>  outside the OASIS process, was either to scuttle or to discredit the
> > >>  current ballot, I'm sure you can understand how folks who know the
> > >>  depth of your feelings might wonder.
> > >>
> > >>  - Art
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  At 11:48 AM -0500 3/26/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
> > >>  >On Mar 23, 2004, at 8:43 PM, Art Botterell wrote:
> > >>  >
> > >>  >>While I've maintained a relationship with the pre-existing
> > >>  >>community that laid the groundwork for CAP, I've made a concerted
> > >>  >>effort not to drag internal TC disagreements out into that public
> > >>  >>forum, and to express only my understanding of the TC's
conclusions
> > >>  >>and in appropriately tentative and open-ended terms.
> > >>  >
> > >>  >Putting on my Chair hat, this is why I replied to this email Your
> > >>  >"understanding of the TC's conclusions" was not an accurate
> > >>  >recollection of the events, so I provided additional information
> > >>  >about what happened (or didn't), along with links as to what did
> > >>  >happen. I will address how I conveyed my personal views inline
> > >>  >below...
> > >>  >
> > >>  >>But for our Chair to publicly criticize our approved Committee
> > >>  >>Draft (see below)... saying things like "we did the wrong thing by
> > >>  >>taking the all attribute approach"
> > >>  >
> > >>  >Which is why I put IMHO - to further signify that this was my view,
> > >>  >even though I have Chair concerns with it. Specifically, as Bob's
> > >>  >email points out, it is a view that is very hard to defend.
> > >>  >Things/decisions that are hard to defined become issues for the TC
> > >>  >and can impact adoption.
> > >>  >
> > >>  >>and "there is not enough 'specification' there to do that in a way
> > >>  >>that supports the vary nature of what CAP is suppose to
support"...
> > >>  >>and to say these things "ex officio," explicitly signing himself
as
> > >>  >>TC Chair...
> > >>  >
> > >>  >I really do not know how to respond to this other than to point out
> > >>  >that this talks to, as detailed in a separate email, that CAP is
not
> > >>  >easy to defend as a "protocol", and therefore this statement is
> > >>  >nothing more than one based on that fact. Let's get really pure
> > >>  >about it and look at the computer science definition of protocol,
> > >>  >which can be found on Dictionary.com, which states:
> > >>  >
> > >>  >"A standard procedure for regulating data transmission between
> > >computers."
> > >>  >
> > >>  >While CAP regulates the data, it does nothing to address its
> > >>  >transmission (insert all the debates about "transport" and "how to
> > >  > >implement" here).
> > >>  >
> > >>  >>and to do it right in the middle of a ballot period and
immediately
> > >>  >>prior to the public launch of CAP should that ballot pass... all
> > >>  >>that strikes me as as a shocking failure of judgement and
> > >>  >>leadership, as potentially damaging both to the CAP effort and to
> > >>  >>OASIS's credibility, and as just plain wrong.
> > >>  >>
> > >>  >>Allen, I really think you ought to consider whether it might be
> > >>  >>time for you to assume a different role.
> > >>  >
> > >>  >This TC, like any standards committee, is an open forum to discuss
> > >>  >topics as long as those discussions pertain to the task at hand.
The
> > >>  >comments provided, which I would be more than happy to technically
> > >>  >defend, are put forth with the intension to try and improve CAP. At
> > >>  >no time do I say or even imply that I am talking about changing 1.0
> > >>  >in mid-stride - we had that vote. In fact, putting my Chair hat on,
> > >>  >these comments would not be addressed until "future version"
> > >>  >whatever version identifier that maybe.
> > >>  >
> > >>  >Additionally, we should never discourage comments at any time. Even
> > >>  >if comments, no matter who they came from, changed the outcome of
> > >>  >the vote (NOT my intension btw), then its not because someone took
> > >>  >the time to submit comments, but because the spec was not
adequately
> > >>  >defended or defendable. If what we put out can not take and
> > >>  >appropriately handle/stand up to comments and/or criticism, then
> > >>  >that is a reflection of our work - not the commenter.
> > >>  >
> > >>  >Allen
> > >>  >
> > >>  >--
> > >>  >R. Allen Wyke
> > >>  >Chair, OASIS Emergency Management TC
> > >>  >emergency-tc@earthlink.net
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
roster
> of
> > >the OASIS TC), go to
> >
>
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgr
> oup.php.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
> the OASIS TC), go to
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
> >
> >
>



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