RE: [rights] Clarification...

["Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>]

Title: Clarification...

Hello Carlisle:

I disagree as this is inconsistent with my understanding of the JC based upon the discussions during its proposal. The JC is not a direction setting body but was created to help the coordination process if the individual TCs deemed it to be necessary. It is a forum and only that. The JC was also proposed to facilitate the communication with the JC membership and the other standards within OASIS if they wanted it.

I had repeatedly brought up this issue during the formation of the JC. I also brought up the fact that in my personal view if 2 or more TCs want to work together, why do we need to have another process just for coordination? The other membership thought that there was a need to more formalize this process beyond calling it a "liaison process". It was made quite clear to me that this is the extent of the JC.  I would not have agreed to anything else.

This is directly from Karl Best's (OASIS Director) email (4/4/02) explaining the JC:

" A Joint Committee (JC) at OASIS is a committee created for the purpose

of coordinating work between multiple TCs. You can read about JCs in

section 1(o) of the TC Process. We already have a JC for ebXML, which

has been pretty successful in providing a forum where the chairs of each

of these TCs discuss common issues, set up liaisons, coordinate

technical discussions, etc. "  

 

In voting to participate in the JC, the RLTC voted based upon the information that was presented in the meeting which is directly from the Security JC website and the subsequent RLTC member discussions that were held during the meeting. It is incorrect to assume that the RLTC membership voted for anything else.

Regards,

Hari

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Carlisle Adams [mailto:carlisle.adams@entrust.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 11:49 AM
To: 'Brad.Gandee@CONTENTGUARD.COM'; 'hal.lockhart@entegrity.com'
Cc: 'rights@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [rights] Clarification...

Hi Brad, Hal,

On the RL TC call today, both of you challenged my statement that the Security JC would, in some sense, "control" the scope and work efforts of the various member TCs.  I didn't think it was worth spending time on the call discussing this further, but I did want to send a quick note to clarify my position.

I'm not at all suggesting that this control is in any way dictatorial; TCs are somewhat autonomous and can set and follow their own charters in whatever way suits their members.  However, the JC's job is to coordinate these various activities.  It is impossible to coordinate without some measure of control.  By definition, coordination means saying "how about if A does this, B does that, and C does that other thing, so that together we accomplish our goals".  If that suggestion is followed, this is control.  If it is completely ignored by all participants, there is no control and no coordination.

This is the only sense in which I meant the term "control", but I stand by that sense.  The JC is not just an information-gathering body; it is intended to be a coordinating body.  It cannot do this unless it is able to exercise some tiny bit of control over what the member TCs do.  In voting to become a member of the Security JC, the RL TC has voted to submit to some direction from that body.

Carlisle.