[rights-requirements] Silent Running

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Greetings,

In the conference call of the rights-requirements subcommittee on 3 September 2002, Hari Reddy stated that he had as chair of the RLTC, decided that some of the requirements submitted by the SBL were "out of scope" for the committee and had simply ignored them in the report of his analysis of the SBL requirements. 
 
There is no record of the Rights TC or the Rights Requirements SC granting the chair the right to silently dispose of any submission to the TC or SC. Such silent disposition is contrary to the basic principles of OASIS, but in particular, that the standards process be democratic and auditable. Both of these principles are announced on the OASIS website, along with other principles for standards work at: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/. 

The lack of democracy in silent disposition by the chair of submitted requirements is fairly obvious. Members of the requirements SC have not been called upon to vote on any disposition of any requirement in the three conference calls in which I have participated and it has been reported to me that no such votes have ever been taken by the rights requirement SC. That the chair has allowed non-voting parties to participate in the conference calls is to be commended (and suggested to similar TC/SCs). But the chair's noting that no one has ever objected, meaning one assumes that "silence is agreement" is not a principle of democratic process. Just in the last three conference calls, there has always been at least one or more participants who simply give up on trying to state their positions. Democracy is not served by discussion to the point that objecting parties become too weary to continue. 

The second problem with silent resolution and the "silence is consent" model is that it leaves no audit trail for TC/SC decisions. Witness Hari Reddy's contention that the analysis model used for requirements had been adopted by the SC. One will search in vain (as I did) for any recorded decision on the basis for such analysis. In contesting my statement that such a model had been adopted, all Hari could say was that it had been circulated since June and discussed every week. And that means what? All that it means in terms of OASIS process is that it has been circulated since June and discussed every week. Nothing more than that can be drawn from the record that can be audited by either the OASIS board or any person interested in joining the process. 

In fairness to Hari, he does ask if there are objections and comments on a regular basis and does ask that issues be posted to the mailing list. That does not, however, leave a record of decisions by either the TC or SC, which has apparently proceeded without formal decisions on a number of issues. 

A minimal democratic process would allow full discussion of all submissions (including comments from non-voting participants) and an accurate record being kept of those discussions. It would further require that resolutions be placed before the TC/SC for discussion and debate, with an adequate opportunity for formal statement of positions and supporting analysis. After such a process has occurred, the TC or SC could then proceed to a recorded vote (as opposed to indeterminate discussion dominated by a few speakers) that would record the positions of voting members on the issues before them. 

I don't think any of the suggestions I make above are unknown to OASIS TCs or unsupported by OASIS policy. The process of developing useful public standards using a democratic process is time consuming and at times annoying. However, the OASIS Board selected that model (a good choice in my opinion) and however cumbersome it may seem to the RLTC Chair or other participants, the Rights TC and/or the Rights Requirements SC is not free to set it aside. 

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu