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

["CONSULTRAC" <rcarlton@consultrac.com>]

Art,

It's okay, you're forgiven.

Rick
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Art Botterell" <acb@incident.com>
To: "CONSULTRAC" <rcarlton@consultrac.com>;
<emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [emergency-msg] Fw: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re:
[emergency-comment] Re: CAP and attribute-free encodings...


> Rick -
>
> Sounds like you're having a bit of trouble letting go of this
> yourself. No matter how many of your questions I try to answer in a
> calm and factual manner, you keep coming back with another attack on
> me.  You're free to do that, of course, but I don't think anyone is
> going to find it real persuasive.  (And before you take the trouble
> to say it again, yes, I fully appreciate that you don't give a damn
> what I think.)
>
> Maybe there's a difference here between the perspective of
> organizations that have paid their dues to become full voting members
> of the OASIS process and some of who haven't made that investment and
> might sometimes tend toward a narrower take on things.  I don't know.
> Anyway, I'm afraid I don't recognize in you any special authority to
> speak for anyone but yourself.
>
> On the other hand, if you think you have something substantial to
> contribute to the work of the TC, please bring it on.  We've been
> waiting for a year now to hear something substantive from the
> Infrastructure project.  I sincerely hope you'll manage to get
> further in the near future, and I'm glad to hear you're getting some
> help.
>
> Meanwhile, I think we've worked over this whole issue pretty
> thoroughly, so how about we take the weekend off?
>
> - Art
>
>
>
> At 1:41 PM -0800 3/26/04, CONSULTRAC wrote:
> >  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_workg
r
> >>  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_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-msg/members/leave_wo
rkgroup.php.
>
>
>