Re: [emergency] Fwd: [CAP] Re: [emergency-comment] Re: CAP andattribute-free encodings...

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

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