[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [rights] Clarification...
Thomas Hardjono wrote:
Also, having members of one group purposely join the other to influence it or to tip the voting scale, will only annoy honest members who only want to deploy the technology a.s.a.p.
The same can be said when one
company a half a dozen members of a TC.
-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Hardjono [mailto:thardjono@verisign.com]
Sent:
June 12, 2002 2:22 PM
To: Carlisle Adams; Gandee, Brad;
'hal.lockhart@entegrity.com'; Reddy,
Hari; 'DeMartini, Thomas'
Cc:
'rights@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [rights]
Clarification...
I think there is sufficient scope for unique
work in RLTC and XACML.
Rather focusing on what the other group (and what
the JC) is doing,
perhaps each group should just focus on getting their own
work done,
even if perhaps there will be some (perceived)
overlap.
Also, having members of one group purposely join the other to
influence
it or to tip the voting scale, will only annoy honest members
who
only want to deploy the technology a.s.a.p.
At the end of the day,
what counts is whether the standard will be used
by the industry (e.g. DRM
industry) and by the key-players in the
industry.
thomas
H.
---------
At 6/12/2002||02:05 PM, Carlisle Adams
wrote:
>Hi,
>---------- From:
DeMartini,
>Thomas[SMTP:Thomas.DeMartini@CONTENTGUARD.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, June
>12, 2002 1:42 PM
To: 'Carlisle Adams'; Gandee,
Brad;
>'hal.lockhart@entegrity.com'; Reddy,
>Hari
Cc: 'rights@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE:
[rights]
>Clarification...
>
>I completely agree with Hari's
earlier point that we cannot make
>assumptions about what the TC voted on
other than what was presented at
>the meeting. "Clarifying comments"
after the fact should not be read to
>clarify what the TC voted on; they
only confuse the issue. The TC voted
>on what the TC voted
on.
>"The TC voted on what the TC voted on." True. And what
the TC voted on
>was to become a member of a body whose explicitly-stated
goal was to
>coordinate the activities of its members.
>That issue
asside, perhaps the following quote will put the question of
>"what is a
JC" to rest: "A TC shall have no obligation to abide by
any
>decision arrived at in a JC to which it contributes membership.
The
>business of a JC to which a TC contributes membership shall be
imparted to
>the TC through reports from the chair of its liaison
subcommittee*. Such
>reports shall have the same force and shall be made,
received, and acted
>upon in the same manner as reports from any other
subcommittee of the TC."
>--
><http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml#sec1o>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml#sec1o
>
>
>This
precisely aligns with what I said in my original e-mail on this
topic:
>"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".
>But the JC cannot
coordinate anything if its members just do whatever they
>want. This
is not
coordination.
>
>Carlisle.
----------------------------------------------------------------
To
subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC