[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [tm-pubsubj] FW: TC comment list configurations (part 2)
This is Karl's answer. I must admit I feel very uneasy with that issue now. But I think every TC member should be aware of it. | -----Original Message----- | From: Karl Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] | Sent: jeudi 6 février 2003 14:51 | To: Bernard Vatant | Cc: larsga@garshol.priv.no; Holger.Rath@empolis.com | | Bernard, Holger, Lars: | | (I've removed the HuML people from this response as a lot of it is TM | specific.) | | | Bernard Vatant wrote: | > Karl | > | > I'm quite puzzled by your message. I don't know about my colleagues Lars | > Marius and Holger, but I certainly missed, on purpose, the distinguo | > between "public comment" and "public discussion". In Topic Maps land, | > all standardization process has always been very open and public. Maybe | > it's again OASIS rules, but letting people *comment* without ability to | > *discuss* is something that I just can't understand, and even less | > *stand*. "We've heard what you have to say, thanks, we'll take it into | > account". This is the way it is done in many places, yes ... why? I | > wonder. And those places in any case I fly away from. | > For me, either a process is public, and there is a forum for public | > discussion, either it is not for some good reason, and all is private: | > no public discussion, no public comment. Concerning our TCs (Published | > Subjects) work, I don't see *any* reason not to have public discussion. | > I would say the more we have, the better. | | While I agree that public discussion is generally a good thing, we now | have the problem of technical eortk being done by the public instead of | by the OASIS TC. The TC Process is quite specific: the TC list is for | the TC to do the work and the comment list is only for the public to | send comments to the TC. I usually give TCs a bit of latitude on this, | but when I see 90%+ of the discussion taking place on the TM comment | lists rather than the TM TC members lists I begin to wonder if these | really are TCs or if OASIS is simply providing free public discussion | lists. | | > The work of Published Subjects TCs is deeply connected with other | > working groups, like ISO SC34/WG3, or recently XRI, and hopefully other | > to come, like OWL. Issues are discussed back and forth. If not on the | > public lists, where are those exchanges supposed to be made? | | TCs generally liaise with other organizations by exchanging members. | | > In which way public discussion is a problem? For whom? | > Why should the discussion be "prevented"? | | I don't want to say that this is about money, but membership dues | support the technical activities of OASIS, and if we allow our technical | work to be conducted in an environment where membership is not required | then we have removed any reason for people to join OASIS, which would | ultimately lead to OASIS not being about to provide these services. | | Membership and money aside, this also dilutes our process and the value | of the OASIS name. If anyone can have all of the privileges of | membership without joining then what value is the consortium itself? | | (Do any other standards organizations provide what you are suggesting | that we should do? does anyone else allow non-members full access to the | discussions of their technical committees?) | | > This latter expression just frightens me ... sorry, I've always been a | > man of free speech. Is OASIS the wrong place for that? I hope not. | | "Free" in what sense? I too am in favour of free specch, as in allowing | anyone to say what they want to say. But OASIS is in no way obligated to | provide a forum for anyone who wants to say anything about anything. Our | obligation is to provide what our TC Process describes: a means for TC | members to discuss their technical work, and a means for the piublic to | watch that discussion and to make comment on it. | | Lars Marius Garshol wrote: | > | "...Each TC shall be provided upon formation with a general list | and > | a comment list.... The purpose of the TC comment list is to | receive | > | comments from the public and is not for public discussion. The | > | comment list of a TC shall be publicly subscribable. TCs shall not | > | be required to respond to comments...." | | > I saw this part of the process document, and deliberately ignored it. | | Obviously. But I can't ignore it; it's my responsibility to enforce the | TC Process. | | > It made no sense to me. The purpose of a TC is to create technology, | > and it seems obvious to me that the greater the involvement of the | > public, the better the end result will be. | | That's why we provide means for the public to send their comments to the | TC. But we aren't required to provide means for the public to discuss or | to participate in the TC without becoming members of OASIS. | | > The GeoLang TC has had several non-members contribute to the process | > through the comments list, and their comments have definitely improved | > the quality of the end result appreciably. Without the ability to | > discuss their comments on the list with them this would not have been | > possible. | | They should join OASIS and the TC if they are interested in participating. | | > My only comment is that I can see no reason for doing this. It cannot | > fail to damage the standardization process, and I can't see that | > anyone stands to gain anything from it. I realize that OASIS would | > rather have people join OASIS and the TCs if they want to participate, | > but my experience is that if people are economically capable of doing | > so (time- and money-wise) they will. And if they are not, the absence | > of a public discussion list will not make them join OASIS; it will | > just lock them out of the process altogether. | | In our experience if someone values what OASIS offers they will join. We | make it quite simple to do so by offering a variety of levels of | membership. | | I should further point out that the topicmaps-comment list is not only | being used for public discussion but is also not associated with any | single TC. It was formed three years ago in anticipation of a member | section being formed, which didn't happen because the TM participants | could never meet the requirements for forming the member section. So we | need to find a way to move the discussion of OASIS members to one or | more of the TC lists. | | -Karl | | ================================================================= | Karl F. Best | Vice President, OASIS | +1 978.667.5115 x206 | karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC