Re: [tm-pubsubj] Call for vote on new deliverable structure

[Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>]

Lars Marius

Let me answer about the process of this vote, not on the core of your opposition.

The rationale for this motion has been posted a week ago (Monday 27), with the proposed
schedule of one week for discussion before vote. My Saturday message was just a reminder,
since I had no reaction to the previous post.

I remind you also that this proposal could have been voted in Barcelona by present
members, but that we preferred let absent members express on it.

You were yourself aware of this proposal since Barcelona, and I can only regret you did
not provide your opinion sooner, or ask for more discussion before the vote was open.

Bernard


----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@garshol.priv.no>
À : "tm-pubsubj" <tm-pubsubj@lists.oasis-open.org>
Envoyé : lundi 3 juin 2002 22:28
Objet : Re: [tm-pubsubj] Call for vote on new deliverable structure


>
> * Bernard Vatant
> |
> | <motion>
> |
> | The first TC deliverable will be called :
> | "Published Subjects : General Requirements and Recommendations"
>
> I haven't had time to look into this yet, but could you explain why
> you would like to split this deliverable out from the original first
> deliverable?
>
> To me it sounds as though the first deliverable will contain very
> little in the way of real substance, but that it will imply that we
> know what to do in the second deliverable. If we publish deliverable
> #1 first, that implies to me that we can't go back and change it. So
> we shouldn't freeze it before we know what we'll do in deliverable
> #2. But if we *do* know what to do in deliverable #2 why don't we just
> do that at the same time?
>
> On the other hand, I don't see why we can't just produce a new draft
> of the recommendations that contains what's now described as
> deliverable #1, and then continue work on adding what is now described
> as #2 to that draft. That will avoid any procedural problems with
> going back and changing #1, and still allow us to set down what we
> feel we have figured out so far.
>
> I don't see the point of this proposal.  Several times already I've
> seen people look at the current recommendations and be disappointed
> because there is so little there.  Now we seem to have decided that
> the first deliverable is to contain almost nothing, and I don't think
> that's a good idea.
>
> I think that we are very close to ready to move on from the basic
> principles that were agreed on in Barcelona and start on the real
> work, which is now scheduled to be deliverable #2. I fear that if we
> follow the proposed schedule we will
>
>  a) cause problems for ourselves by freezing a document containing
>     recommendations we don't understand the full implications of, and
>
>  b) cause more problems for ourselves by getting bogged down in the
>     practicalities of finishing and polishing that document, rather
>     than moving forward to the real issues and actually making real
>     progress.
>
> So at first glance I don't like this proposal at all. Maybe my
> misgivings are exaggerated, but I can't see any reason to do this, and
> several reasons not to.
>
> Also, Bernard, it would be very good to get more than 2 days warning
> before a vote starts. I haven't had time to read all my email properly
> the last days because of various forms of non-TC-related stress. More
> time would have helped us avoid mixing up discussion and voting. (If
> we are required to vote rather than discuss at this point I guess this
> counts as a very long-winded "NO".)
>
> --
> Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
> ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>