[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] TC SATISFACTION SURVEY
OK got the point now. Can I ask you two guys to chew this some more and come back to the next TC meeting with some ideas or firm proposals if possible please. John From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Colin Wallis Indeed worthy of more thought and discussion.. I can’t see how OASIS can be directly involved (i.e. be the prime contractor and receive funding) and maintain its non profit 501 3 or 6 (c) status.. So organisations might put in proposals, and if accepted, might leverage work done in OASIS TCs (probably because they are also members of the TC as well). Understandably some other TC members who volunteer their efforts in a general way for the TC may not be that willing to help the TC members getting the funding – to say nothing of the incy wincy problem of IPR.. J As soon as you introduce money into something like this, behaviours will change IMHO.. I don’t know if NSTIC followed the UK initiative (Technology Strategy board ‘ensuring trust in digital services’ Project Directory should give you enough to search on) but a look through that will give you sense of why this approach is flawed (in my personal view) and counter productive to openness and interop which is surely what NSTIC wants and what open stds orgs can deliver.. Cheers Colin From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Colin, Indeed – didn’t see this mail before sending off my earlier mail… As regards NSTIC – any particular ideas? There are a number of project initiatives coming up around NIST’s announcement of a federal funding opportunity (FFO) to promote pilots but I’m not seeing how an OASIS TC would/could be directly involved in this – I think it is more that our and other TC’s (ID in the Cloud, PMRM, etc) can be specifically requested to deliver against a set of requirements, including anything coming from NSTIC. That role is rather more reactive. The only way to up the ante would be for us (OASIS? OASIS Board? Member Section? TC’s?) to be more organically involved in the NSTIC process. Something to discuss certainly in Gaithersburg in March at the OASIS/NIST Id Trust workshop…. Cheers, Peter Peter F Brown Independent Consultant P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278 From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Colin Wallis Not where I was going with that line of thought John I’m in no way proposing that we sell our message to the defence and security folk. What I am saying is that, we need to aim for both ‘top down’ as well as ‘bottom up’. We seem to have some civil servants interested and hopefully will get more, but they have to be motivated to do so, and will be in their own time. Motivation doesn’t always come ‘bottom up’. The civil service operates in two modes – motivation to change something from below/within, or told to change something from the top. That close circle of politicians and policy/advisor folks that support them that hold the power to change stuff, typically have security/defence in their mind because those specialist folks from below have access to them. What I am saying is that we need to find a way to take some of that mindshare. One possible way in there, as I’ve said before, is via the connection to NSTIC and similar initiatives, because of TGF’s dependency on identity management and, and both TGF and NSTIC-type initiatives leveraging the concept of federations/joined-up-ness . I sense that those NSTIC initiatives are getting some mindshare with the high up inner political circles – not just the US, but AU, EU ... maybe one day soon even NZ! (although we have a public Service Transformation agenda already agreed to high up so we are probably underway in our own way, without relying on NSTIC–type stuff). Whether alone, or on the coat-tails of the NSTIC works, we need to get our stuff in the door of those top politicos. Cheers Colin From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Thanks Colin. Unfortunately it’s going to be difficult to sell the message of citizen-centric services to defence and national security leaders IMO. So we would need a slightly different tack for them. Let’s pick up on this on the next call. John From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Colin Wallis It’s darn hard, is my first answer. I know that, up to a point, the market will come to the work, and whatever we do to force that timing forward, we will be pushing against a partly closed door. One of the challenges I find, is that most folks doing Cloud or doing Identity, don’t see the market opportunity by pushing their wares in the government transformation space. And visa versa. The other issue is that there is no clear and obvious ‘government transformation space’ yet, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Governments are as siloed on an inter government level (when you get beyond national security, defence and law enforcement where there is both a mutual incentive and high level/political mindshare) as they are intra-government. However, my now well known cynicism took a hit a few weeks ago when I learned from Malcolm Crompton in Australia (not our own privacy folks of course!) that APEC’s Privacy Framework has just agreed the Corporate Binding Privacy Rules for multi-jurisdictional governance of privacy (harmonisation) across the member countries. This was a volunteer effort of APEC nations both gov and private sector organisations, that goes to show that even without the threat of national security, defence etc, if there is enough motivation and volunteer effort to make it happen, you can achieve things. Which brings me to the nub of the issue..getting the mindshare high up in government where defence and national security sit right now.. Cheers Colin From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras I’m sorry we didn’t have the time to discuss this on our call yesterday and I’ll ensure we make time for it on the next call. In the meantime it would be good to get some views from you on how to go about meeting these issues. And just to remind you we did agree on our previous call that the priority at this stage should be on outreach rather than on producing further products, so dealing with these comments now is very timely. For the last point about clearer objectives, as I said on the call if the person who made that comment would like to elaborate on it either with the whole TC or just with me, then we can hopefully work out a solution to the problem. It doesn’t sound like it’s a real showstopper, perhaps just more explanation required in some of our documentation. The first and second points I think are closely related and we should be able to tackle both through the same solution. Now that we have base-lined versions of the Primer and the Pattern Language, plus the emerging Policy Products document, we are in a much better position to reach out and sell the messages. A quick and easy way is to host a Webinar or series of Webinars. OASIS does a lot of these and generally they go down well albeit only attracting small audiences. So I propose that we do one or more of those but do not rely on it as the only solution to the problems. We need to supplement the webinars with other events, such as the breakfast session we held in Brussels last year. But of course that sort of event will cost money and again any one event will only reach a relatively small audience in any particular region, unless we can run a series of them in different parts of the world. Another angle we could try is working with other Organisations to promote our message, like we are doing with ERIS@ here in Europe. Perhaps a follow up to the launch event we held with the World Bank might be something we could attempt. We have tried a number of times to get papers or articles published with no real success so I do not feel we should put too much effort into that route in future. To take any of this forward we will need a few volunteers to help prepare the outreach material, host some of the events and use their communication networks to help promote our activities. Whilst OASIS has a very good communications network, it does not necessarily have access to our target audience of senior bodies in Government organisations and consultancy houses. Can I hear from any of you who are willing and able to assist with any of this and also any other ideas that you think we should pursue. It would be good if we could put together a package for approval on the next TC call. John From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] I have just received the results of the recent TC Satisfaction Survey for our TC and thanks to those of you who took time to respond. There are some comments made in the survey that I would like to follow up on during our next TC call so perhaps you could give it some thought beforehand. - - “Engage in more educational and promotional activities, such as webinars and seminars” - “Encourage broader participation” - “Develop clearer objectives for the work products” I would stress that this is not a witch hunt by me for those who have made the comments, I’m just trying to use them as positive inputs to the future work of the TC. Regards John Borras Chair OASIS TGF Technical Committee m. +(0)44 7976 157745 Skype: gov3john www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tgf ==== ==== ==== |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]