Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Use of non-OASIS facility by Requirements Subcommittee

[Jim Beard <beard@counterclaim.com>]

I agree.  I'm glad that some effort has been made to correct certain  
issues, but lax adherence to open policies tends to lend itself to  
misconceptions of intention.  I can't see how this could be a good  
thing, especially when dealing with a national standardization effort.

Jim

On Nov 23, 2004, at 7:30 PM, Robert DeFilippis wrote:

> John,
>
> Allowing the wiki to be reviewed by members of the TC and the public,
> along with providing snap shots of the work produced by the  
> subcommittee
> to the OASIS web site is certainly a positive development and a step in
> the right direction.  I believe that what is at the heart of these
> issues is the perception by people like me that some work and important
> decisions have been happening behind closed doors.  I'm sure that is  
> not
> your intention but that is my perception.  Most people would agree that
> a standard not based on peer review and application does not have a lot
> of a chance for acceptance or success. I don't understand why it took  
> so
> much effort to get to this point and perhaps that is a lesson learned.
>
> As to the subcommittee, do they have an official charter or statement  
> of
> purpose? I'm also assuming there is a list of deliverables along with
> deliverable dates?  Robin recently posted (today) the subcommittee
> minutes from August 30th and they allude to some deliverables and dates
> but I can't find them.  Lacking timely published minutes from our calls
> and meetings, the limited group resources seem to be centered on
> oversight issues instead of being focused and productive.  Perhaps  
> these
> items are available somewhere and I am simply overlooking them, and if
> so, then my apologies and would appreciate if you could point me in the
> right direction.
>
> I believe it is important to demonstrate that our processes are
> occurring in a manner benefiting everyone who might want to use
> standards developed by this group. Indeed this seems to be what OASIS
> intended by forming TC Guidelines, which it describes in the following
> manner:
>
>   "OASIS has adopted this Technical Committee Process to ensure an  
> open,
>
>   democratic governance for its work, giving all interested parties,
>   regardless of their standing in a specific industry, an equal voice  
> in
>
>   the development and activities of the consortium."
>
> Whether accidental or otherwise, by not adhering to the policies of
> OASIS the TC will continue to run the risk of being perceived in the
> wrong light.  With the amount of work before us, I don't believe that
> anyone participating in the TC deserves to be perceived in that  
> fashion.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert T. DeFilippis | EVP & COO
> One Legal, Inc.
> 504 Redwood Blvd.
> Suite 223
> Novato, CA 94947  USA
> 415-491-0606 x2216
> rtd@onelegal.com
> www.onelegal.com
>
> 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/legalxml-courtfiling/ 
> members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
Jim Beard
counterclaim.com, Inc
http://www.counterclaim.com
http://openefm.sourceforge.net
(800) 264-8145