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: 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  


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
> 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]