Re: [chairs] OASIS TGF TC STANDARD BALLOT

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John,

I find it curious that you complain about the timing of my comments
when you concede that:

> It was apparent to us from the very outset of the TC that the work
> products that we would be producing were of a different nature to
> the typical OASIS technical specifications, for example our use of
> Pattern Languages.

Your TC had more than two years to ask the OASIS board to fashion some
other work products rules for your TC, but did not do so.

If I weren't a generous person I would speculate on why new work
product rules were requested only upon comment on your "different
nature" work product.

BTW, that conformance clauses insure interoperability is not a matter
of personal opinion, at least for technical standards.
Interoperability is how standards reduce costs for all involved in
areas where standards exist.

The OASIS Board can fashion other work product rules more appropriate
for your work product and that would be good for OASIS. If and when
OASIS has such work product rules, I would have no objection to TGF
being approved as such a work product.

I think the TGF TC has chosen unwisely in not asking for new work
products rules prior to now and in proceeding in the known absence of
rules appropriate for its work.

You will have to ask others why rules appropriate for your work
product weren't pursued before now.

Sincerely,

Patrick


On 05/01/2013 02:47 PM, John Borras wrote:
> Board Members
> 
> 
> 
> You will be aware of the result of our recent Standard Ballot and
> the differences of opinion that have arisen during the ballot.  My
> TC intends to proceed with approving the specification as submitted
> and has asked TC Admin to run a Special Majority Vote to approve
> the result in accordance with the TC Process guidelines.  However
> this should not in anyway be interpreted as us taking the concerns
> raised during the ballot lightly and being dismissive of them.
> Indeed we recognised that the size of the No vote is one of the
> largest in recent OASIS Standards ballots and that is of concern to
> us, but many of the comments praised our work and the objections 
> were more  about process than the content of the TGF.  The debate
> has not been of our choosing and we would rather the concerns were
> raised well before the ballot started and agreement reached on the
> rights and wrongs of the issues to avoid this conflict and any
> possible damage to the reputation of OASIS.
> 
> 
> 
> It was apparent to us from the very outset of the TC that the work
> products that we would be producing were of a different nature to
> the typical OASIS technical specifications, for example our use of
> Pattern Languages. We have done our best to work within the current
> guidelines and our very appreciative of TC Admin's support and
> advice throughout our efforts. However we do believe it appropriate
> for the Board to reflect on the outcome of our ballot and in
> particuler addresse the following aspects.  We are aware that Peter
> Brown intends to initiate a discussion at your next meeting and we
> would ask that you take the views of the TC into account during
> those discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.        Types of work products.  OASIS has traditionally
> focusssed on what can be generally regarded as technical
> specifications and is reknown for its work in that area.  However
> more and more the need for specifications and standards is moving
> up the stack and OASIS as an organisation needs to decide whether
> it wants to encompass these new types of work products or stick
> with what it knows best.  A clear statement of direction on this
> point should be issued to the membership and the wider general
> public.  If, as we recommend, the  Board embraces these new types
> of work products then all associated process guidelines need to be
> reviewed and amended to reflect the variety of work products that
> will inevitably be produced.
> 
> 2.       Conformance Clauses.  During our ballot this was really
> the major point of contention and it boils down to a difference
> opinion of what constitutes an appropriate set of conformance
> clauses.  Much of that difference we believe is related to the
> different types of specifications. What might be appropriate for a
> technical standard, where conformance can be tested according to
> black and white rules, is not necessarily the same for something
> like the TGF where the conformance requirements are less rigidely 
> defined for a variety of reasons.  We recommend that the Board
> instigates a review of the current Conformance Clause guidelines
> and amends them as appropriate in the light of decisions made on
> point 1 above.
> 
> 3.       Awareness and Education.  The consequences of embracing
> new work products and changing current guidelines will require an
> awareness campaign and for some aspects, eg conformance clauses, an
> education programme so that current and new members know how to
> interpret and use the new guidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> We are very happy to provide any assistance on these matters during
> your deliberations and subsequent reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> 
> John Borras
> 
> 
> 
> Chair OASIS TGF Technical Committee
> 
> 
> 
> m. +(0)44 7976 157745
> 
> Skype:  gov3john
> 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tgf> 
> www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tgf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

- -- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRgYtJAAoJEBerZNWIP55shzIH/3QJxE4Q/ldlEIqQjuyXfgeL
EUPeOzOj32JFeldvC9lK00gIhAcauC9mEi8RHx5Glmens/GQfUwqpqUOafXOT5dW
OjP+AOhjuViZiyl+43Fqd6GJrneYCpsOd8y3HZS4xSxz07PzHdZpV0bXULLrWXs2
Xr6h1xDVhLRDosIU0B8O0uoHIwYDIxM1OxKqr+K77K9Mho4t0/TdHKnw+CrtATdA
VYa/agwsHEAY3g/KQKzaovPTzDXNslOXKow2Qi6xLsG1PpZvReptuLs4rve33hAG
B54XN4+LnpDSnYpoDw71nIyJtOlKZ9Kk867A6Rv6OEnkSjSkKg5/MsPNa1tuZH0=
=1tN7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----