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, 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

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