OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] MARBUX POINT OF ORDER, OBJECTION, ANDSUGGESTIONS No. 1

Let me make his point shorter for him:  he doesn't want this project to 
go forward so fast.  He'd like it to slow down. Why ever might that be?

"1. An immediate moratorium be declared on  further decisions in regard
 > to the work product of this formation group while the chair conducts a
 > discussion of short-term steps to improve the situation.;"

Etc. Set up committees. Discuss process. Anything to slow this down.

  There is, I hope, an outside limit to how much he will be allowed to 
disrupt and block progress, because that is how I view it.

I suggest that there be some rule about threats of lawsuits being 
grounds for exclusion from the discussion. I'd like a rule folks are not 
allowed to insult and demean other people either, but that's probably 
too much to hope for.

Some of us have been around this track before.

marbux wrote:
> Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order under the rules.
> I rise to object to the manner in which the Chair is presently
> conducting this meeting.
> While the Chair's method of discussing multiple agenda items
> simultaneously was workable when only a few people were participating,
> the number of concurrent items of discussion and persons discussing
> them has mushroomed beyond my capacity to participate effectively. I
> estimate that with my current backlog of unread messages to this list,
> were the list server to go down immediately and not come back up until
> I had caught up, it would take me more than a workday simply to read
> them and many more days to respond to items that concern me, based on
> my recollection of what I have read so far and projecting a like
> proportion into the future.
> Tracking what posts I have responded to and finding my way back to
> them has also become unmanageable. At the present point, I have been
> up working my way through the mess for approaching 42 hours. I am not
> a young man, I am disabled and have serious health issues that require
> that I maintain a slower pace than that at which this meeting is being
> conducted.
> Such difficulties are compounded by the lack of a competent system for
> submission, tracking, and processing of  of agenda items, the order in
> which they are being processed, a specified format and means of
> identification for submission of agenda items.
>  This mailing list is an inadequate means of processing the
> information flowing through it. If there is an agenda, I have no idea
> where it is. If there is a method of tracking what is suggested,
> proposed, and decided, I have no idea where it is. From the glimpses I
> have had over the last two days, the chair appears to be tracking
> discussions by thread, and maintaining multiple records of discussion
> items scattered through many threads su- records of cumulative agenda
> items in each thread by quoting, cutting, pasting, and summarizing the
> state of the agenda in each thread with new posts records of the
> agenda items and their processing in multiple threads.
> The Chair appears to be responding to to the flood of participation in
> a manner that leaves me without any competent awareness of what is
> happening. For example, twice in the last 24 hours I have encountered
> threads I had not previously read in which the Chair had already
> proclaimed consensus on a list of items regarding which I wish to be
> heard.
> Moreover, I have personally experienced signs that the Chair himself
> is moving far too fast. For example, I put many hours into a response
> to the chair's request for assistance in assembling the section (1)(d)
> list of deliverables and supplemented it with a list of further items
> I proposed to be placed on the deliverables list for discussion. See
> my post here. <http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oiic-formation-discuss/200806/msg00260.html>.
> The chair's response was so hurried that the snipping removed several
> items. For others, I can not tell which proposal the chair was
> responding to,
> More disturbingly, the Chair rejected several of my proposals rather
> than placing them on the agenda for discussion, ruling that they would
> be decided by the TC once formed rather than being put on the agenda
> for discussion  E.g., "I'm not hearing a consensus to dictate any
> specific technology for this.  So by default, we'll defer to the new
> TC to investigate the possibilities."
> How the Chair determined a lack of consensus is beyond me, since the
> Chair's post was the next after mine in that thread and to my
> knowledge there was no poll of participant's positions. So far as I am
> aware, the Chair is the only person on the list who has opposed my
> proposal that the TC be tasked with filling the interoperability
> framework void in the ODF standard with the W3C Compound Documents by
> Reference Framework, and requiring that all profiles developed by the
> new TC conform to that framework's specifications for development of
> profiles.
> My understanding is that the Chair may permissibly rule matters out of
> order, but rejecting proposals for deliverables himself does not
> accord with my sense of the Chair's proper role. The Chair is not an
> arbiter. His task is to conduct the meeting, not to dictate its
> results .
> I attribute the Chair's behavior to coping with the work overload
> rather than to any desire to maintain ODF interoperability in its
> crippled state. But the present system being used to process agenda
> items is no longer workable. We are overwhelmed by the sheer number of
> participants in trying to work with just a mailing list.
> This is not to suggest that I am displeased with the broad
> participation. Far from it, I think a major weakness of most standards
> bodies is that they have too little public participation and that as a
> result big vendors wind up drafting standards that meet their needs
> rather than the needs of software users and independent developers. I
> welcome broader participation. But if there is to be broader
> participation, there must be a revamping of the system for
> participation. Email was never designed for large group meetings.
> I therefore respectfully suggest that the chair consider the following
> suggestions (not in any particular order and not necessarily mutually
> exclusive). (I do not intend by offering these suggestions to hold any
> monopoly on suggestions, which is why I have designated them as
> suggestions rather than motions).
> 1. An immediate moratorium be declared on  further decisions in regard
> to the work product of this formation group while the chair conducts a
> discussion of short-term steps to improve the situation.;
> 2. Convene one or more small committees to study the participation,
> process, and infrastructure issues;
> 3. Solicit suggestions for process improvement;.
> 4. That the number of agenda items being processed concurrently be
> limited to two.
> 5. Lean harder on OASIS to make the software used for TC work
> available for this group because of the exceptional circumstances.
> (Oasis has some legal responsibilities to ensure that the formation
> process is conducted fairly and in a manner that allows for effective
> participation.).
> 6. Postpone work on the Charter to first conduct a rough market
> requirements assessment. In my opinion, market requirements must be
> identified before a rational charter can be drafted to fulfill them.
> 7. Designate committees for various aspects of the formation work and
> push OASIS to create a separate mailing list for each committee.
> 8. Create one or or small web pages with a rough guide on how the
> meeting's work is processed that can easily be linked to as new
> partipants appear.
> 9. Migrate the formation project to Sourceforge or a similar site with
> a more appropriate package of services.
> 10. Other?
> Best regards,
> Paul Merrell (

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]