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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

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

Subject: Re: [emergency] Global Homeland Security Conference

On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 03:21, Art Botterell wrote:
> Strictly speaking, of course, all the OASIS TC Process calls for is 
> "certification by at least three OASIS member organizations that they 
> are successfully using the specification consistently with the OASIS 
> IPR Policy."  It doesn't appear that OASIS imposes any requirements 
> about the venue in which that use occurs.

Correct - but that is actually a 3rd thing. In other words, that is a
hard requirement to move the spec before OASIS to be voted on as a OASIS
Standard. Its nothing more than 3 companies stating they successfully
used the standard.

The short test we agreed on at the f2f was for our own internal benefit
to ensure the spec didn't have anything missing that we didn't see in
the review, and the thought is that it would lead to the larger "real"
implementations that the 3 companies had to standup and say they did
(see previous paragraph).

And then there is the third test at the conference.

> I mention this only because I'm thinking we might not need to demand 
> that TC members participate in two separate activities... unless they 
> want to, of course.  Testing is good and more testing is better, but 
> we're all busy and we might not need to set the bar artificially 
> high... and I'm sure we don't want to create any disincentive for TC 
> members to participate in EC activities.

I think the word "demand" is a little unfair. Its just something we
agreed to do, and without the group deciding as a group to change or not
do it, it has to stay on our To Do list. No one person can change that.
But you are correct in saying that it should be rethought, which is why
my original email mentioned changing it and that if that be the desire
of the TC, that we just need to agree to it.

Based on that and your suggestion, I assume you are at least in favor of
removing this To Do, correct? If so, then I can certainly create a
Ballot in Kavi and the group can quickly decide.

> The EC and the TC may not be the same thing, but I don't think that 
> makes their activities mutually exclusive.  If the TC could leverage 
> results from an EC activity, seems like that would be so much the 
> better... and permissible under the OASIS rules.

Correct - their efforts are no different they anyone else outside of the
member area. This is why the documents, email archives, etc. are all
public - so anyone can take the standard, follow our work, and
implement. And there is a public comment feedback mechanism that gives
them an avenue to send information back into the TC. Of course I am
clearly not saying that TC members who are also EC members have to only
comment back through the public comment.

> That's just my personal take on it, though... the decision would be 
> up to the TC.


> - Art
> At 11:01 PM -0400 8/28/03, Allen Wyke wrote:
> >The Chairs had a lengthy discussion with Karl and Jamie at OASIS today,
> >and this was one of the topics of discussion. I wanted to send a quick
> >email to ensure there is no confusion about this public demonstration.
> >
> >This particular test is not an EM TC test, but rather a group that
> >happens to include both members and non-members. If it were an EM TC
> >test, we have certain things we are obligated to do, such as limiting it
> >to only members. This clearly is not meant to reduce any steam of that
> >effort, because this is obviously a great validation to the work of the
> >TC and specifically to the SC. I just wanted to make sure we were all on
> >the same page.
> >
> >It is also worth mentioning, that this should not be confused with the
> >EM TC's requirement of performing the agreed upon (at the mini-f2f)
> >tests. So those who signed up for that test (Blue292, E Team, DMIS, Ship
> >Analytics, IEM, and Unisys), are still obligated to do such. If this
> >needs to change for any reason, then it needs to be raised to the TC,
> >because right now it is on our To Do list.
> >
> >Hope this clarifies things - Allen
> >
> >--
> >R. Allen Wyke
> >Chair, Emergency Management TC
> >emtc@nc.rr.com
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
> 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.
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC

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