[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Appeal to OASIS-Appeal-001
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings, This is an appeal to the OASIS Board of Directors with respect to the decision taken by TC Admin regarding OASIS-Appeal-001. The background of this case, with the original appeal to TC Admin, and the ruling by TC Admin can be found in [1]( and copied in the appendix for convenience) and will not be repeated here. As per TC process [2], since we are appealing the action of the TC Administrator, a new appeal is being made to the OASIS Board of Directors. We would like the Board to reverse the decision of the TC Administrator and require the TOSCA TC to go through a re-chartering process for the reasons outlined below, and laid out in the original appeal. The appellants are fully supportive of the new charter, though we are concerned that the incorrect process was followed for its approval. The TC Administrator correctly identifies the critical issue on appeal: The crucial question in this situation is: "Did the changes made broaden the TOSCA charter; that is, did they make it possible for the TC to undertake work that it could not do under the original charter?" But the TC Administrator was not the first person to ask and answer that question. The representatives of the TC stated at the appeal hearing that they did not consider the TC charter in need of changing. However, it came to light that other members of the TC were uncertain enough about the scope of the TC for the TC to agree to the process of "clarification" to settle their concerns over scope. Since the TC undertook this change in the charter to deal with a scope concern, the TC Administrator erred in deciding that the "clarification" had no effect on the scope of the TC. Clearly the "clarification" settled scope concerns in the minds of members of the TC since the ballot was successful. However agreeing on less ambiguous words is different from acknowledging that the IPR scope of a TC may have actually been widened, and we believe that TC Administrator and the TC Chairs have confused ambiguity with scope, which has resulted in the same language being inserted contained as both the in and out of scope. The evidence offered by the TC leadership clearly established the intent to resolve scope concerns of TC members, not by narrowing, but by copying text from the out of scope section to the in-scope section. That they choose to call it a "clarification" doesn't change the actions of the TC. We therefore request that the Board reverses the ruling of OASIS-Appeal-001 and require the TOSCA TC to re-charter as laid out in 2.12 of the TC Process [3]. Signed: Martin Chapman (Oracle), Patrick Durusau (Individual). [1] https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tosca/201306/msg00005.html (copied in the appendix below) [2] https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#appeals [3] https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#rechartering Appendix: Copy of Ruling from TC Admin - --------------------------- Subject: [OASIS-Appeal-001] Decision . From: Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> . To: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>, jdurand@us.fujitsu.com, "Paul C (Paul.Lipton@ca.com) Lipton" <paul.lipton@ca.com>, smoser@de.ibm.com . Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:27:22 -0400 ________________________________________ Summary: On 09 April 2013, the TOSCA TC approved a Special Majority Vote to clarify its charter. On 01 May 2013, I announced the clarified charter to the membership of OASIS. On 16 May 2013, OASIS members Martin Chapman, Patrick Durusau and Jacques Durand submitted a written appeal to TC Administration stating their belief that the changes to the TOSCA charter expand the charter's scope and requesting that I invalidate the vote approving the clarification and require the TC to instead make the change by rechartering [1]. The detailed facts are laid out in an email to the parties involved and to the tc-administration@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list on 30 May 2013 [2]. After considering the issues raised in the appeal, the changes to the charter approved by the TC and the definition of charter clarification in the OASIS TC Process, I am satisfied that the changes approved by the TOSCA TC fall within the meaning of charter clarification and that the TC does not need to recharter. The appeal is denied. Details of my decision are below. After the discussion, steps are provided for appealing this decision should any party wish to do so. 1. Details of this decision 1.a The appeal The appeal raised two issues with the changes made to the charter: a) "the new charter places an item within the scope of the TC which the original charter had explicitly declared as out of scope, thus widening not narrowing the scope of the TC." b) "The original charter specified that work on standardizing concrete component types, whether vendor specific or not, would be done in other, yet to be chartered, Technical Committees. Changing this and bringing this work into the TOSCA TC widens the scope of the original TC." I agree with the appellants that if either of these assertions is true, then the TC did indeed expand its scope and thus could not approve the changes as a charter clarification. To determine whether they are true, we first review the changes made to the charter. 1.b Changes made to the charter In its Special Majority Vote, the TC voted on changes contained in a red-lined version of the charter that was linked from the ballot [3]. Those specifically relevant to the appeal are: a) Item 1. listed in the "Out of Scope" section was changed from: "1. The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates. However, standardization of a basic set of concrete component types, relationship types and properties is intended to be enabled by this work, and could begin in parallel with this project, with appropriate coordination." to (with <insert>s and <delete>s flagged) "1. The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates. However, standardization of a basic set of <insert>non-vendor specific</> concrete component types, relationship types and properties<insert>, which includes all attributes of the type and all contained elements, </> is intended to be enabled by this work <delete>, and could begin in parallel with this project, with appropriate coordination</>. b) A new item 3. was added to the list of items "specifically in scope": "3. Standardization of a basic set of non-vendor specific, concrete component types, relationship types and properties, which includes all attributes of the type and all contained elements." 1.c The meaning of clarifying a charter Charter clarification is discussed in section 2.11 of the OASIS TC Process [4]. It begins by stating: "A TC may clarify its Charter only for the purpose of removing ambiguity or for narrowing the scope of the topic defined by the Charter. The TC may not broaden or otherwise change its scope of the topic of work." The crucial question in this situation is: "Did the changes made broaden the TOSCA charter; that is, did they make it possible for the TC to undertake work that it could not do under the original charter?" The first item listed as of out of scope in the original charter was "The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates." That item was then immediately qualified with a second sentence that read "However, standardization of a basic set of concrete component types, relationship types and properties is intended to be enabled by this work.". The second sentence clearly limited the extent of the work deemed out of scope. It retained for the TC the right to produce *basic* concrete component types -- whatever that may mean in practice -- under the charter. We can all agree that this could have been written much better than it was. However, the effect of the sentence is quite clear: *basic* component types were always within scope. Did the addition of the words "non-vendor specific" and "which includes all attributes of the type and all contained elements" to the second sentence expand the scope of the work it permitted? I take them instead to be an effort to better explain what is meant by a *basic* component type - as efforts to limit the extent of what the limiting sentence itself allows. They do not have the effect of expanding the scope. Did the addition of the new item to the in-scope list expand the charter? Given that the words it are identical to the words used in the "However" sentence, it cannot. It simply addresses the ambiguity caused by having in-scope work embedded in the out-of-scope section of the document. Once again, we can all agree that the original language could have been better, but this does not change the overall meaning of scope of the charter. Lastly, did the deletion of the words "and could begin in parallel with this project, with appropriate coordination" from the end of the first out-of-scope item change the scope? The appeallants assert that these words meant that the work on basic component types would be done "in other, yet to be chartered, Technical Committees." I think this is a stretch. The sentence does not specify in any way where the work might be done and does not use the words "other Technical Committee" or anything like it. A more straightforward reading of that clause is that it allowed the TOSCA TC to start the work on basic component types in parallel with work on the specification itself "with appropriate coordination." In conclusion, I find that the original charter enabled the TC to work on "basic component types" because of the language limiting the extent of the first out-of-scope item. I find that the additional words inserted into that sentence simply attempt to better describe what is meant by the word "basic." I find that the repetition of that second sentence in the in-scope section of the charter simply addresses the ambiguity of placement in the original charter. Lastly, I find that the words ". and could begin in parallel with this project." does not indicate that another TC was anticipated but rather was a procedural note on when work on a basic type could start. I find that the TC has simply eliminated ambiguity from their charter. I affirm the clarification vote and the resulting charter clarification. 2. Procedure for appealing this decision Appeal of this decision can be made by any party to the OASIS Board of Directors. To appeal this decision, send the appeal to oasis-board-comment@lists.oasis-open.org and copy the TOSCA TC and tc-administration@lists.oasis-open.org. A copy of this decision is being mailing to the oasis-board-comment mailing list for reference. Please reference [OASIS-Appeal-001] in the subject line to ensure continuity of the record across the respective mailing lists. - --- References [1] Email: "Appeal to the charter clarification recently made by the TOSCA TC," 16 May 2013: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-administration/201305/msg00000.html [2] Email: "[OASIS-Appeal-001] Background and Facts for the Action Being Appealed," 30 May 2013: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-administration/201305/msg00024.html [3] Red-lined version of the TOSCA charter approved by the TC: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=48749&wg_abbrev=tosca [4] TC Process, section 2.11 TC Charter Clarification: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process - ---- end ---- - -- 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/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRzJcRAAoJEAudyeI2QFGongsP/3aAPVy265o+lX+lFXejm46N 4gdrKhLMiZ++tg8+4idWLmBkUx59rsjqMbsdr04Sj3GcDPvn7BhfJpjvD2HX+sqk 7kVOAxQK/XwgExd1DbbnoSEDWs7C10rD/exdLVR+qCk0ZFED9IvrSWIeQt9ASU+O LSRAPQoLE2n+139XSqLsSBrok8DmT3VGip7uTrWGqmmjlz8k7t2/F7QuU9GPGEwl PGblX0Xl1bdcQYsQk+JJCG9mATDJr/aAmLbNxA4e398rmEgVkwLxjxu4yCtQU+N8 r8RQFsQPcj2DV4vZuaKE7NvY2O9cowIxIiJ6W4mD+kVJO2C/qHp+4T5dZ37WDdXW d70cRlpgB3517v5k2/ZjUeXsfdaVI+a8U/Z6JgunKjloNhrxTziodu4lpaDcJF5V kx5nAyyGBMhCaoxaeD7vHxbiUHTQGHK83DXX5527bPuW5loVn4QP/bzcmD7VACPS 1Jpt3B376c5GpDZGgWnWZFfabwkfPEyhuwv28M21bQIHEBJNtaJh5B8gs6lshyXF OVLjQXV0bng9x4lo1+jRAyIuaHjrsp8hLvNK/5zkcdV5OfWt0pLPtOTfojS6jAZl jX4dxRMxjQzfEVyDpbax28nWO4rLAMYSdDYQjQ6wkbL3QJ7rmMMy9B+kzI+SrUOU yAjOGVum5/uyRQRYdOeT =DZjK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]