[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] MARBUX POINT OF ORDER, OBJECTION, AND SUGGESTIONS No. 1
I assume this was just an accidental hit on the send button because it merely quotes portions of what Ms. Jones said before. On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Pamela Jones <pj2@groklaw.net> wrote: > 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 ( > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > oiic-formation-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: > oiic-formation-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org > > -- Universal Interoperability Council <http:www.universal-interop-council.org>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]