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] Re: [emergency-comment] PPW letter re CAP

At 8:50 PM -0400 10/8/03, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
>You focus on the areas that have the most interest, which is
>represented by their involvement in the standards process, and you hit
>that first.

That's one way to set priorities, but it isn't our only option.  We 
can also prioritize those issues that have the greatest potential 
impact on the ultimate success of the standard.

We should also bear in mind that several hundred people and 
organizations put their trust in OASIS when they contributed their 
collective work of the prior two years to this process.  Certainly we 
can choose to respond only to our own interests and concerns, but I 
think we're better than that.

>What Rex is referring to is the simply fact that media/broadcast is
>represented only by 1 member of 1 OASIS membership organization, while
>other areas have a larger (in terms of bodies, which is what ultimately
>drives a democratic process like OASIS) level of commitment.

If we all vote merely on our organizational self-interest then your 
logic holds... but I don't think that's how most of us are 
approaching this.  In a serious discussion, issues need to be 
evaluated on their merit before we start counting votes.

>If you are comparing medai to non-media standards and technologies, then
>I disagree. If this were the case, then we would not have any demos or
>products able to release support for CAP day 1 of it being official.

Not sure I follow your logic here.  That folks have done such demos 
as the state of the current specification allows doesn't mean that 
there wouldn't be a wider swath of demos from more early adopters if 
the standard met more potential users' needs.

>There is always a "we have to hit it" deadline - anyone in this space
>knows this. If broadcast media is so special that its one and only ship
>is about to sail, then what is driving that?

Not my area of expertise, really... you might want to query the 
NDSAmerica folks or PPW for real details... but off the top of my 
head I'd suggest that the FCC's mandatory schedule for DTV conversion 
and the relatively long manufacturing leadtimes for consumer devices 
might have something to do with it.

>I think the point here is not that anyone disagrees that broadcast media
>should not be addressed, which is something we talked about and I
>thought agreed to at the 7/15 meeting. But rather a) now is not the
>time, b) including IN CAP (vs as an official or unofficial note or
>recommendation) may not be the right way to do it, and c) how they
>propose addressing it is not the best way (our IF SC can help guide us

I understand your position, but I have to disagree because:  a) 
there's good reason to believe that this may be the only time we can 
do it without forcing an unnecessary fork in the standard... and 
there's no good reason we CAN'T do it now if we just allow ourselves 
to; b) a number of companies have said that if it's not explicitly 
set forth in the standard, it doesn't help them ensure 
interoperability with other folks' products; and, c) which way is the 
best is a question that ought be decided by the committee after open 
and thoughtful consideration by the committee, not preempted by folks 
taking inflexible positions from the start.

- Art

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