[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: EM-TC EDXL-DE CD Process - Formal Objection
Elysa - I can only say that the process has been suboptimal. However, that can simply be viewed (positively) as a challenge to us all. Renato On 17 Aug 2005, at 06:03, Elysa Jones wrote: > 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. >> >> > > > > Cheers... Renato Iannella National ICT Australia (NICTA)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]