Re: EM-TC EDXL-DE CD Process - Formal Objection

[Elysa Jones <ejones@warningsystems.com>]

Dear Renato,

First, let me apologize for not getting back to you sooner.  I wont make 
excuses.

Now to the subject.  I appreciate the comments and issues that you have 
brought up over the time I have been EM-TC Chair and see you as an 
important member and contributor of our group.  The information model that 
you drafted is also appreciated and has aided in various discussions over 
the past eight weeks.  While your revised format for the data dictionary 
won general approval among the TC, the majority of the group didn't seem to 
embrace the object model you offered.  It may be that the members are just 
too used to the DOM approach or that the information model gives the 
impression that we are further down the road than we are.  It must be 
understood too that the DOM we started with for the current work was a 
consensus approved model originating from the New Orleans face to face.

It is true that Michelle and Sylivia started putting the specification 
together reviewing all e-mails and documents in the TC folder at my 
direction during a TC call for which there was not a quorum.  It is not my 
understanding that a TC vote was required to get this effort started.  It 
was basically just putting what had already been done into the OASIS 
format, get a working schema and highlight the issues left to be 
addressed.  I don't mean to imply that this is not a very major task but 
just that it did not give this group or any other license to make changes 
to what was already agreed.

We also have been late in getting the meeting notes posted.  Now that we 
have Julia as our secretary, this should go smoother.  We also have not 
documented all discussion in the meeting notes but have tried to focus on 
the highlights and any decisions made when there is a 
quorum.  Understanding that you, unfortunately, are not able to participate 
in our calls due to the time difference, we will try to put more details in 
the notes AND get them posted sooner.

As you know we had a call today - and the meeting notes will be out before 
tomorrow - EDT.  We spent quite a bit of time discussing the issues you 
raise and the information model.  A quorum was present for our call today 
and the following was discussed:

1)  Does the current EDXL DE draft properly capture the discussion to 
date?  It was the consensus of the group that we have captured these 
discussions.
2)  Have Dr. Iannella's comments and issues been reviewed and 
addressed?  Several members (specifically Rex, Tom, Gary, David, Michelle 
and Sylvia) expressed that they reviewed the comments and felt like each 
had been addressed.
3)  Do we need to have both a DOM and an information model in our documents 
going forward?  Carl had suggested that both were included in OGC 
specifications.  Gary specifically likes the format but doesn't see putting 
it in the specification as such.  The group agreed that the best place 
would be the "cook book" that Patti is working on for such a data model.
4)  How are we going to manage the issues and versions in this fast-paced 
week of trying to finish up this spec?  Michelle started an issues list via 
the list.  She will add to it the results of todays discussion and send it 
to Julia for posting with the minutes as well as sending it directly to the 
list.  Art will begin the formal issues list with the feed from 
Michelle.  We are asking anyone at this point when an issue is raised to 
please also offer a proposed solution for discussion and any ramifications 
they envision.  The document in its current form will be numbered EDXL/DE 
0.1.  Each time we make changes, this number will roll until we get to the 
1.0 committee draft.

I hope this response addresses your concerns.  I have followed the TC 
process guidelines as I understand them trying at every turn to be sure all 
members are heard and that we go forward with a consensus of the group.  I 
continue to welcome your comments and be sure they are heard.  Thank you 
for your efforts.

Regards,
Elysa Jones, Chair
OASIS EM-TC
Engineering Program Manager
Warning Systems, Inc.
256-880-8702 x102

At 12:57 AM 8/16/2005, Renato Iannella wrote:


>Elysa, I did not wish to get to this point, but I don't seem to have
>much choice now given the
>speed at which this is moving.
>
>I would like to formally register my objection to the current CD
>process.
>
>Firstly, my requests for clarifications on the process, in particular
>why the "Data Model" [1] (dated 2 May 2005)
>version of the draft was used instead of the latter "Information
>Model" draft [2][3] (dated 20 June 2005) have
>all gone unanswered [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].
>
>Second, the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2005 [10] in which
>it said:
>
>   "A task force of three (Michelle, Sylvia and Lee) are going to
>take the
>   work of the DE to date and compile it into the OASIS format template"
>
>Obviously DID NOT include all of the "work of the DE to date" and has
>missed significant discussion and
>outcomes since the 2 May 2005 draft.
>
>Third, the minutes [10] also clearly state:
>
>   "A quorum was not in attendance"
>
>Hence, according to the OASIS TC Process [11]:
>
>   "Without a quorum present discussions may take place but no
>business may be conducted"
>
>
>Again, I regret that we have reached this situation, and request that
>these outstanding and
>serious issues be addressed prior to any new work on the current CD
>process continues.
>
>
>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>National ICT Australia (NICTA)
>
>
>[1] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200505/msg00015.html>
>[2] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200506/msg00160.html>
>[3] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200506/msg00196.html>
>[4] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200508/msg00011.html>
>[5] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200508/msg00013.html>
>[6] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200508/msg00026.html>
>[7] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200508/msg00048.html>
>[8] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200508/msg00059.html>
>[9] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200508/msg00060.html>
>[10] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/ 
>archives/200507/msg00047.html>
>[11] <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.10>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
>privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
>messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
>data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>amendment. This notice should not be removed.
>