[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] Voting No on TGF ballot - TC's RESPONSE
Chairs You will already have seen the response from Peter Brown, copy attached, to Patrick's complaint. I have to re-enforce emphatically on behalf of my TC what Peter has said in our defence. The TC has followed all OASIS procedures to the letter and no complaints have been received at any stage during the various internal and public reviews. So why does Patrick raise this objection at the 11th hour during the final vote. He has had ample opportunity to raise any objections at an earlier date and to do so now is not really helpful to all my colleagues on the TC who have put in many hours of hard work to get to where we are today. It also reflects badly on OASIS as all of the consequences of these exchanges will be in the public domain. I'm sure as TC chairs you can empathise with that situation. Also in our opinion he is wrong in trying to compare the approach to conformance clauses in the more traditional OASIS technical standards where making systems interoperate is the objective and can be fully tested. Those parameters are not the same for a business methodology like the TGF. Our objective is not about interoperability as such but setting a standard approach for running a business change programme, in this case for the delivery of public sector services. There are many other business standards including ISO and national standards where the same type of conformance criteria as we have in the TGF are set. So a different mentality is required for our case and we do not believe Patrick?s views reflect that perspective. We think his final sentence in his note sums it up where he talks about ?OASIS standards to have any credibility in the IT world?. OASIS and many other standards organisations nowadays are not just about the IT world and the TGF is definitely not just about IT. There is a going trend to address the business and other aspects of deploying IT systems and we believe we are in the vanguard of that new focus. I respectively ask you to ignore Patrick's request to vote No and to confirm your support for our work. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] Sent: 23 April 2013 01:18 To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [chairs] Voting No on TGF ballot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings! I have posted a some what longer narrative about why organizational members should vote no on the TGF ballot that closes Wednesday, April 25, 2013 at: http://www.durusau.net/publications/TGF-No.pdf Please pass this along to your primary reps. Thanks! Hope you are having a great week! Patrick - -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRddMPAAoJEBerZNWIP55s5MMH/Arlha8J5frOIpHuHZ3+FppB mMNDAQ9b8TebwHCBIJQi1kqsE5w/vOJB1mKWfAigtK30A5vGbViOUnTjAYKTeBeY 5L1CcUMhOq/FGIWfpzTe7wpYKM6uSJyZ2U7XWaFHdX+Q3zh5VuYu6h+5/gpjOzOT P97nXY+wvC5C6THS9v++9FyjXLNT5MvPFGEMX5IDoqwQp5d2qB1391SZjYlHPBLb /JrvdEsgw7hm3J0YdXxVhw1qMba7XKk4PYtJlfBarYDGnIikVAh0zI1ApEsxGih5 kYSZampX960vIsOAEKHw2W95MpXIVR178rKx51PuPmja20o2Fk8CddfypxA3Y3Q= =+Zsq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Peter F Brown" <peter@peterfbrown.com>
- To: <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 02:24:37 +0100
TC Chairs, I respect the right of any OASIS member to express his or her opinion on any matter before the OASIS membership, but I feel that the mail sent out by Patrick Durusau together with his referenced note are misleading and inaccurate. Please note: Firstly, Patrick signs his attached note as "Member of the OASIS Technical Advisory Board" (TAB) although writing to me previously on this issue he stressed that the opinion is strictly personal. It has not been discussed or endorsed by the TAB nor by any of the other bodies that Patrick lists among his titles and responsibilities. Secondly, he criticizes a particular deliverable rather than the process as a whole: the Technical Committee took extraordinary measures to ensure that the conformance section of the document was drafted in accordance with the OASIS TC Process document and sought, received, and followed, counsel from the OASIS TC Administration in this matter. The document was thus drafted in accordance with the process. If Patrick wishes to criticize the process, he should do that, rather than picking on a single deliverable drafted according to that process. Thirdly, for someone so concerned with the TC Process, he raised no comment or objection through the various public review and commenting periods in the development of this work product. On the other hand, the TC did receive comments regarding the conformance clauses from other parties and which were addressed during the disposition of comments following the public reviews. Fourthly, AND MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, if the conformance clauses were indeed not suitable for the TC process, they would have been refused by the TC Administration *before* the work product could have been approved as a Committee Specification or even as a Public Review Draft. It is difficult therefore to understand the motive for such a message to be sent out two days before the close of the final ballot - rather than at any of the earlier stages in the process. Finally, TC process is very clear about what exactly is required within the conformance clauses: "... a separate section, listing a set of numbered conformance clauses, to which any implementation of the specification must adhere in order to claim conformance to the specification (or any optional portion thereof)." The TGF TC complied with this requirement to the letter, as evidenced by the acceptance of the work product by the TC Administration. Patrick hints at additional requirements that are not actually part of the process - again, possibly an indication of an imperfect understanding of OASIS rules and policy. What Patrick might think is useful as a test of conformance (and for which, in more technical, code-level, standards might be appropriate and which I would support) does not translate into what the process actually says. In summary, Patrick demonstrates a flawed understanding of the core process and mixes his personal preferences with what the process actually requires. I do not wish to question his motives for this extraordinary post but I do respectfully suggest to all members that his advice be ignored. I look forward, as does the entire TGF TC, to your support and endorsement of this work. Best regards, Peter F Brown Co-Editor of the Transformational Government Framework Pattern Language - Core Patterns -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] Sent: Monday, 22 April, 2013 17:18 To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [chairs] Voting No on TGF ballot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greetings! I have posted a some what longer narrative about why organizational members should vote no on the TGF ballot that closes Wednesday, April 25, 2013 at: http://www.durusau.net/publications/TGF-No.pdf Please pass this along to your primary reps. Thanks! Hope you are having a great week! Patrick - -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRddMPAAoJEBerZNWIP55s5MMH/Arlha8J5frOIpHuHZ3+FppB mMNDAQ9b8TebwHCBIJQi1kqsE5w/vOJB1mKWfAigtK30A5vGbViOUnTjAYKTeBeY 5L1CcUMhOq/FGIWfpzTe7wpYKM6uSJyZ2U7XWaFHdX+Q3zh5VuYu6h+5/gpjOzOT P97nXY+wvC5C6THS9v++9FyjXLNT5MvPFGEMX5IDoqwQp5d2qB1391SZjYlHPBLb /JrvdEsgw7hm3J0YdXxVhw1qMba7XKk4PYtJlfBarYDGnIikVAh0zI1ApEsxGih5 kYSZampX960vIsOAEKHw2W95MpXIVR178rKx51PuPmja20o2Fk8CddfypxA3Y3Q= =+Zsq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]