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

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

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_workgroup.php.
>>
>>
>>