Re: [rights-requirements] Silent Running

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Hari,

Reddy, Hari wrote:

> Hello Patrick Durusau:
> I am a little confused about your conclusions. The analysis in the 
> working Requirements set is provided to facilitate discussion and to 
> reach consensus. After you submitted the SBL requirements on Aug 6, I 
> included it in the SC's document Revision 6 dated Aug 18. I also had 
> several lengthy conversations lasting several hours with you on the 
> phone subsequent to that release to review the analysis and to get 
> your feedback. I did this specifically not only respecting your role 
> as a submitter but also as a new prospective member to facilitate any 
> education required. To say that I silently disposed of requirements is 
> just wrong. Your submission is still there. If you do not agree with 
> an analysis result then you have the opportunity to present your 
> feedback. I just wish that you had provided me with more specific and 
> constructive feedback during our hours of conversations that the SC 
> could have benefited from instead of stating that your requirements 
> were ignored. There is no disparate treatment in that we have used 
> this method of providing analysis, requesting feedback/clarification 
> and making appropriate changes for all submissions.
>
On the contrary, I have stated both in email posts and in the conference 
calls that I appreciated your taking the time to bring me "up to speed" 
on the workings of the group. I do not repent of those seniments now.

Part of the standards process, as I understand it, is the public, not 
private, debate, discussion and decision on issues that are part of the 
TC's work. As chair you asked for formal responses to the analysis of 
the SBL requirements and I attempted to comply with that request.

I think we have different understandings of how the standards process 
should proceed and quite frankly I prefer the leisure to consult 
documents and minutes so I can formulate my position as clearly as 
possible.

> In specific with regards to your requirement,
>
> "2.     Expressing Rights: Any rights language should be able to 
> express in a simple and straightforward way any rights in an 
> intellectual property in standard XML syntax, such that any user with 
> access to a text editor on any platform can avail themselves of the 
> language. Such a rights language should be free of any restrictions on 
> its use by any user by virtue of licensing, patent or copyright 
> restrictions.",
>
> in our first phone conversation, I explained to you that I did not put 
> the last part of the requirement into the matrix since it was 
> contradictory to the charter that the TC voted on May 21, 2002 to 
> accept a contribution as the basis of the TC's work which had an IP 
> declaration associated with it. We specifically had a discussion about 
> this. While you wished that the output was completely without any IP 
> declarations, you did not request me to make any specific changes to 
> the matrix. As other members of the SC will note, the analysis has 
> been changed and updated based upon more information from discussions 
> with the submitters. This is why we are now on Revision 10 of the 
> requirements set. I also explained how I analyzed the first part of 
> your Requirement 2 and you seemingly agreed.
>
> I also analyzed the submission by Renato Iannella the same way. In his 
> subsequent feedback, he stated that he would like the requirement of 
> RF be considered into the analysis. The other submission that was 
> noted that may also be similar from IEEE has not yet been analyzed.
>
> During the subsequent Requirements call (09-04-02) where the SC 
> discussed briefly your email of 09-03-02 evening, I stated to you that 
> now that you want to request changes to the analysis spreadsheet, I 
> would make the appropriate change but note the IP requirement with a 
> new category called "out of scope". I also stated to the SC that in 
> keeping with our process of transposing the complete wording that I 
> should have done this originally even though I didn't get any prior 
> feedback to do so. If you feel that it is in scope then we need to 
> review the Charter.
>
> After reviewing over 240 requirements statements, I have been very 
> sensitive to maintaining this feedback process. We also sent formal 
> request for feedback to each of the submitters which will be 
> incorporated into the documentation.
>
The attribution of agreement from private conversations is one of the 
other reasons why I think public standards should be arrived at by 
public debate. An even better if it is conducted with formal responses 
and votes. The response you now question was a response to the "formal 
request for feedback" and should be considered as our "official" response.


> With regards to the process, the Requirements SC has been using a 
> consensus building process since its first meeting in June of 2002. I 
> note in the OASIS guidelines:
>
> "The TC chair should become familiar with RRO, but expert 
> parliamentary knowledge is not required. A chair could easily get 
> carried away with enforcement of these rules to the letter; the use of 
> RRO should be an aid to the operation of the TC, not a hinderance. The 
> chair should exercise judgment as to the degree in which RROR will be 
> used for conducting TC meetings; meeting discussions should be carried 
> on in a friendly, professional manner, and consensus should be 
> achieved whenever possible. While TC decisions and voting should be 
> done in a documentable manner, many of the details of RRO regarding 
> precedence of motions, debate, and voting may need only to be applied 
> if there is a dispute - common consent should take precedence over 
> formal motions and votes in committees. "
>
> I fully respect the OASIS process and I have consistently tested with 
> Karl Best for understanding of the guidelines and process. Anyone at 
> anytime could have filed a motion for a vote. I would have respected 
> this and processed this during the meeting. I note that in many 
> debates the minority position could have easily been voted out. This 
> was not my intention as it does not fuel common consent even though it 
> would have actually expedited many discussions.
>
Common consent, as I understand it, means that all the parties have 
commonly consented to agreed upon language or a position. Several other 
standards efforts in which I am involved proceed that way, although not 
formally required. I have no objection to that process but that does not 
mean that we should severally have separate conversations and come to 
outside understandings that satisfy our individual concerns. That 
deprives the other parties to the process of the benefit of your 
analysis and comments made by other participants, which could make this 
a much stronger standard.

Patrick





>
> Regards,
> Hari
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [ mailto:pdurusau@emory.edu ]
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:45 AM
> To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: rights-requirements@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [rights-requirements] Silent Running
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl >
>

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