Re: [oasis-board-comment] Fwd: [emergency] Objections toDHS-Dictated Material in the IPAWS Profile Draft

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

I think a "Conflict of Interest" disclosure policy for OASIS along 
the lines of the W3C model could be a good idea. All member 
organizations need to represent their own interests, but the trouble 
comes in when lack of disclosure raises concerns, especially when 
government agencies are involved and there are possible, but unknown 
impacts on regulatory matters.

Since many if not most of us devoutly support adoption of voluntary 
consensus standards, there are good reasons to encourage government 
participation. But if government members are so highly constrained 
that they feel they can't actually participate lest they 
inadvertently conflict with known, unknown or unspoken policies, the 
value of their participation resides largely in monitoring standards 
development activity rather than participating, even if it such 
participation would be in the interests of the citizenry at large.

I wish I had a good answer for the global time zone problem, and I've 
tried to get alternating times to spread out or equalize the 
discomfort and inconvenience, but nothing I've tried or been 
associated with seems to work as well as we'd like.

Cheers,
Rex



At 3:54 PM +1000 2/17/09, Renato Iannella wrote:
>On 17 Feb 2009, at 10:29, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>
>>And while we may be prevented from showing you the contract
>>to prove how innocent it is, the fact that it can be accessed through
>>the Freedom of Information Act provides a level of transparency that,
>>to me, is just about enough to ensure that no mantle of conspiracy can be
>>attached to it.
>
>So, OASIS is "transparent" by relying on the US Freedom of 
>Information Act?  Wow!
>
>I think OASIS lacks a "Conflict of Interest" policy. W3C has a good one [1].
>
>>Other TCs have email participation and voting, thus
>>having freed themselves from the tyranny of the clock.
>
>This is an old issue from 2005/6 - and for the record - the EM TC 
>did not allow any votes from members who missed 2 or more TC 
>Teleconferences (at 3AM). The fact that you were on weekly SC 
>teleconferences at 7AM (and editing the spec) made no difference. 
>So, TCs may "have a lot of freedom" but not in this case.
>
>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>NICTA
>
>[1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#coi>


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670