[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION: SOA-RM formal consideration of comments submitted to JTC 1
Ken, We should not be caught between a rock and a hard place here. As regards process, The N780 document is a restricted access document (only available to JTC 1 and SC38 members and liaisons) and yet we are being asked to have the OASIS TC consider
and adjudicate on comments that the committee actually has no right to see. As the OASIS TC cannot “officially” look at the SC38 documents, because of IP, copyright and other, legitimate, concerns, the TC has to trust its duly nominated liaisons to perform
due diligence and report to the TC its findings about a particular work in progress. I think that you have done this admirably well. I do not think that you should – or can – distribute JTC 1 “N” documents that are not publicly accessible. We hide nothing away in OASIS but then we have a
different business and operational model to JTC 1. Whether we like it or not, we have to respect that. I know that you submitted that in good faith together with your comments as part of our (OASIS) commitment to transparency but we shouldn’t get in to deeper
water by so doing… I think Chet is right when he said that – although there are no provisions in the TC process that require a TC to consider and approve comments on works of
another organization – we should attempt to handle them in the same spirit as we would our own works (notwithstanding the foregoing, that the JTC 1 source document is not strictly available to us all). I actually think that you have gone “above and beyond”
in doing that, short of having a formally minuted record of the TC having adjudicated and approved all the comments – again, against a document that we cannot see. As a TC member, I would not vote on approving comments to a text that I am not allowed to see. Most of all, there has to be a high degree of trust and mutual respect. OASIS, TOG, IEEE, SC38, others, all have valuable contributions to make in this space.
Bluntly stated, this is not a pissing contest. We all get involved in this sort of work because we feel that it is important and that things need to be stated not because we have some evil agenda to get one over on someone else. If that is how some others
choose to operate, that is their issue, not ours. As regards the substance, This TC has accumulated an immense body of knowledge and expertise over the years. Many have chosen to leverage it in their own work and organizations; others
have chosen to ignore it and hope that it goes away. If the TC liaisons have made 300+ comments on a document, that itself should be a sign that something needs to be addressed. When faced with a similar challenge two years ago in the OASIS TC, that meant painstakingly revisiting whole chunks of text and even some basic assumptions.
We took that on and the work (the SOA-RAF) is much better as a result. I fail to understand why anyone in SC38 would not want to see their own work subject to the same diligence and vigilance. It won’t kill it and it will make
it stronger. However, again as stated elsewhere, the SC38 work “selectively and inconsistently references” OASIS documents and we have a duty of care to ensure this does not continue and that our properties are also defended from unfair or inaccurate referencing. In summary, if the reaction of some of the sponsors of the texts being considered by SC38 is to complain rather than address those concerns, then that is their
choice. But it must be made clear to them that this is their conscious choice to ignore advice and comment that others have taken considerable efforts to assemble. Nobody does it for fun. There is something seriously broken in the JTC 1 process if it cannot
take criticism as being constructive comment for the benefit of strengthening a draft that is intended to be a global standard. I do not wish to see the minutae of procedural rules, wherever they come from, trump good practice and due diligence. Best regards, Peter From: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Ken Laskey
As we have discussed at numerous past meetings:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]