I vaguely remember several years ago comments about how the
OASIS Broad questioned the behavior of the LegalXML. I don’t remember who
said it, but part of the comment suggested that the LegalXML group does not act
like other TCs. This causes me to suspect there is more to this decision
than simply an “on-going concern”.
For example, OASIS still shows DocBook TC as an active
committee. This standard was originally developed in the 1990’s which was
prior to the name change from SGML-Open to OASIS and the last publication was
2005. Did they get such a mandate?
I would suggest that this mandate may have been partially
motivated by how this committee spends money. I doubt DocBook is spending
money to promote that standard.
If the LegalXML TC is the ugly duckling that behaves differently
and we manage to accumulate money that is being spent without the actual
development to the definition of the standard, I would suggest that this may be
part of the problem. I doubt the OASIS Board will cut
LegalXML off as a TC because I see others that are idol but an “on-going
concern”. However if they are not spending money it may not matter
and perhaps the Board is trying to figure out how spending should be allocated
to the TCs and are not clearly stating the issue because they don’t have a good
way to say it.
I have been involved with the W3C, the European Commissioners
OpenDoc committee, SGML-Open, and now with OASIS and I have never seen another
standards body fund members to participate in or promote the standard as
LegalXML does. So I present to the TC a suggestion to look at how
LegalXML compares to other TCs in both behavior and spending as part of the TCs
preparation to approach the Board. Perhaps someone could simply ask the
Board if they feel our behavior and spending is consistent with other
committees and what has happened to those committees that need to be idol for a
while so that the industry can react.
I agree with the characterization as well.
The way this was delivered also suggests a lack of communication within OASIS
as well since no one on the staff came to the SC and told them that the board
was unhappy with the level of activity in the member section. Your suggestions
below shows that the TC is active. Is there any likelihood of new initiatives
starting up? That would demonstrate that the MS has a larger mission that court
filing alone.
/chet
On 10/14/10 11:32 PM, "James E Cabral" <jcabral@mtgmc.com> wrote:
I agree with the disappointment in the lack of communication and
the suggestions that have been given so far in how the ECF TC and LegalXML
Steering Committee should respond. I also have the following additions:
1. I think an explanation of why the ECF TC
intentionally decided to focus on outreach over the last 2 years rather than
development of new standards may be helpful to the Board.
2. I think we
need face-to-face meetings of both the ECF TC and LegalXML Steering Committees
before the end of the year if possible. Meeting this year will allow both
groups to plan and budget before the 2011 OASIS fiscal year begins.
James
E. Cabral Jr., Senior Manager
MTG
Management Consultants, L.L.C.
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3010
Seattle, Washington 98101-3292
www.mtgmc.com <../AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/www.mtgmc.com>
(206) 442-5010 Phone
(502) 509-4532 Mobile
(206) 442-5011 Fax
jcabral@mtgmc.com <../AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/ccollins@mtgmc.com>
Helping our clients make a difference in the
lives of the people they serve.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If
you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material
from any computer.
From: Harris, Jim [mailto:jharris@ncsc.org]
Sent: Thursday, October
14, 2010 10:46 PM
To: ronb@email.utcourts.gov; Robin.Gibson@courts.mo.gov; robert.obrien@cas-satj.gc.ca; george@pcintellect.com; James E
Cabral; chet.ensign@comcast.net
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: FW:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Decision from the OASIS Board of Directors
I have no issue
with the board’s desire to eliminate dormant TCs; and shaking the tree is fine.
But we had no idea the board was considering taking this action. Whether
the action was warranted or not, doing so without any previous communication
that this action was being considered is not just an “unfortunate oversight” –
it’s a serious and inexcusable lack of communication.
That aside, I’d rather focus on what we need to do going forward (if anything).
Picking up on some of the discussion in Tuesday’s TC call (before anyone
knew about the Board’s action), what if we convey to the Board some of the TC
plans:
· For the remainder of
2010, the ECF TC will continue TA and outreach activities to promote adoption
of the ECF specifications for electronic court filing implementations,
· In 2011, the ECF TC is
planning a face-to-face meeting for work on updates to the specification
(including minor corrections and updates based on feedback received from
implementations; and maybe also mapping changes to utilize elements in the new
family domain of NIEM 2.1). TA and outreach activities will also continue
throughout 2011.
· Though precise timing
is not yet determined, we are expecting NIEM 3.0 to be released in 18 to 24
months (probably sometime in 2012). This new version of NIEM is expected
to include significant changes that will require a major version release of
ECF.
Is this what we’d like to see coming out of TC efforts over the next couple of
years? And is this the kind of work that will provide the justification
needed by the Board?
From: O'Brien, Robert [mailto:Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca]
Sent: Thursday, October
14, 2010 7:48 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Decision from the OASIS Board of Directors
It doesn’t get
any better: see attached
From: chet.ensign@comcast.net [mailto:chet.ensign@comcast.net]
Sent: October 14, 2010
9:06 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Decision from the OASIS Board of Directors
>>
The fact that this was happening without the member section steering committee
or the ECF TC not being aware is very disturbing. There is obviously a
serious lack of communication somewhere in the process. <<
Jim, do you mean
that this seems to have happened without any previous discussions with the SC?
I agree that if this is the first anyone's heard of the board's unhappiness,
that is an unfortunate oversight.
I can offer some perspective from my time on the Technical Architecture Board
(TAB). The OASIS board has expressed two concerns consistently, through a
variety of changes in membership and agendas: how can OASIS get more TC's going
and how should OASIS handle TC's that exist on paper but are effectively
moribund.
While I was on the TAB, the staff developed guidelines for the second issue
that I believe have reduced the number of dormant TC's. I am sure the board is
still vocal about the first issue (let's face - there will never be such a
thing as too many TC's).
It's ironic that
at the very moment when open government is becoming a much more public topic
and where OASIS itself has at least one new TC starting up, the board is
putting the LegalXML member section on the spot. (I realize of course that
government and law are not the same thing - but you really can't have much of the
former without the latter and if action around o-gov is heating up, it is
reasonable to assume that there'll be some ripple effect in the e-law.) But
perhaps that's the point. I can put myself in the board's shoes and see how
they could be asking "Is anything really happening in LegalXML? With all
this Law.gov stuff going on, why don't they have
more activity in the works?"
George,
you certainly make the case that we're no moribund. And, based again on my past
experiences, I don't think the board is on the verge of doing anything
draconian. My guess is that they just want to shake the tree a bit to get our
attention and see if we can't get more TC's started up or reactivated, more PR
about our activities, more organizations coming in as members, etc.
That's my
take anyhow. I believe the board would be more than thrilled to have us
spending money so long as OASIS has more activity to show for it. Perhaps it is
time for some thoughts on recruiting new members and inviting in new
initiatives.
Best regards,
/chet
Individual
member