Re: Charter: Participating Member conditions

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@techno.com>]

> As many of you might know STEP is one of Europe's leading 
> companies in the Topic Maps arena and wants to become a
> Participating Member of TopicMaps.Org providing substantial
> input to the spec. Unfortunately nobody from STEP was able 
> to attend the last two meetings in Washington and San Jose.

Yes.

> With this in mind I read the charter (2000/03/03) very 
> carefully and figured out some "problems" for STEP 
> (you might call me paranoid):

Speaking as one occasional paranoid to another, let me urge you to
control your paranoia.  (Anyway, if you were *really* paranoid,
Holger, you wouldn't have written this letter! (:^))

TopicMaps.Org would really have to be crazy to exclude STEP
deliberately, either by action or inaction.  STEP's contributions to
the field of Topic Maps are a matter of record.

> I refer to section "3.5.2. Adding Participating Members and 
> Assigning Classifications":
> 
> -	"No more than one official Participating Member is allowed 
> 	per organization."
> 
> 	STEP is a group of companies in Germany, Hungary, Poland, 
> 	and UK all belonging to a large holding: Bertelsmann.
> 
> 	Does this count as "one organization"?

I'm afraid so, since they all represent a single economic interest.
We're trying to develop industry-wide consensus, and that naturally
translates to a "one economic interest, one vote" policy.  The voting
rules are not designed to help Bertelsmann achieve internal consensus.

> -	"To be considered for Participating Membership, a person 
> 	must have actively participated in the two preceding 
> 	face-to-face TopicMaps.Org AG meetings in their entirety, ..."

> 	As stated before nobody from STEP participated the last two
> 	meetings. NB: It was not very "Europe friendly" having both
> 	in the US.

STEP was not excluded; STEP was in full possession of all meeting
notices as soon as anyone else was.  STEP simply did not send a
representative.  Although the organizational meetings were held on
both coasts of North America, they were attended by Europeans and
others from around the globe.  Please believe me, Holger, when I tell
you that (1) we are all trying to do the right thing and the fair
thing, and (2) since no one has said otherwise, I believe that
everyone wants STEP to be represented in TopicMaps.Org.  For what it's
worth, I do.

> 	Do we have to attend the next two meetings to be considered
> 	for Participating Membership or could we ask for Participating 
> 	Membership immediately?

Let me understand what you're asking here.  Please choose one:

(1) Are you proposing an alteration to the draft charter that would
    permit STEP to be regarded as a founding Participating Member?  If
    so, what is your proposal, specifically?

(2) Are you proposing that the AG, once duly constituted by the
    adoption of the charter, take a vote on whether to admit STEP's
    representative as a Participating Member in a fashion which is
    exceptional, conferring "instant" Participating Member status
    instead of requiring the usual 2-meeting "Special Guest" status,
    and regardless of the technology vs. content balance of the
    founding members?

(3) Are you proposing immediate Special Guest status for STEP?  If so,
    I promise you, I will make that motion myself.  Remember that the
    only difference between a Special Guest and a Participating Member
    is that a Special Guest doesn't vote.  As Henry Kissinger once
    said, "Knowledge plus access equals power."  As a Special Guest,
    STEP will have both knowledge and access, and even after it
    becomes a Participating Member, it will not control the outcome of
    the decision-making process -- it will only have one vote.  It's
    not a big difference, really.  Being a Special Guest means having
    the privilege of influencing the voters, which is the bulk of the
    power that Participating Members have, anyway.

(4) Are you proposing something else?  If so, what?

> 	I do not know the current ratio between content-oriented
> 	and technology-oriented members. But if the tekkies are 
> 	already in the majority and no more technology-oriented
> 	members will be considered before the ratio is fine, then
> 	this is quite unfair to companies -- like STEP -- which 
> 	were involved in many TM discussions before but did
> 	not know that participation in Washington and San Jose are 
> 	preconditions becoming a Participating Member (I just assume
> 	that all Wash./S.Jose participants could become a Participant 
> 	Member without applying these rules. Am I right or wrong?).

You are correct about the fact that the founders automatically become
Participating Members.  However, and speaking only for myself, I
reject the idea that "this is quite unfair to companies -- like STEP
-- which were involved in many TM discussions before but did not know
that participation in Washington and San Jose are preconditions
becoming a Participating Member."  On what other basis did STEP think
that the formation of a consensus-seeking group and the adoption of
its charter could be legitimized?

> I would appreciate it very much, if someone would answer my question
> in a way that I do not have to worry about STEP's Participating 
> Membership any longer.

I don't think you need to worry about it at all.  The way for STEP to
become a Participating Member is already clear.

I must tell you that, in my own personal view, it is unbecoming for
STEP to take the position that it should be exempted from
responsibility to participate in meetings, just as the founders
already have, before becoming a Participating Member.  That would not
be fair, and the position you're expressing is corrosive of the kind
of atmosphere that we need in order to make progress toward consensus.
Consensus is impossible without mutual respect.  Consensus never comes
from pushing for a position which has not been earned in the same way
that everyone else's position was earned.  Consensus is achieved
because everyone wants a standard -- the achievement of a public
agenda -- *more* than they want to achieve their own private agenda.
The creation of a standard involves much more giving than controlling.
Your note makes STEP sound like it's totally focused on controlling.
As far as I can see, STEP's behavior so far has not demonstrated
STEP's willingness to contribute to the achievement of consensus.
It's not a good sign, and, quite frankly, it worries me.  But please
stick around; I think we'll all get there, and we'll all make some
interesting discoveries together.

> Another issue: What is the reason you bind the Participating Membership
> to an individual person and not to a company delegating a person (yes,
> it is somehow possible with "Replacement" or "Substitution" but this 
> is complicated and requires voting)?

Because progress requires continuous involvement by specific persons.
It is impossible to make progress if the actual participants in the
discussion keep changing.  Political power is not the focus of this
group.  The primary focus is to create a spec upon which the industry
widely agrees, to make it the best spec we can, and to make it as
quickly as we can.  Voting is a formality designed to record the fact
that we have reached consensus on a given issue.  The discussion is
where the consensus is actually reached.  Meaningful participation in
a discussion requires *continuous* participation in that discussion.
The charter was specifically designed to avoid rotating memberships.
It is very emphatically *not* the purpose of this group to educate the
staffs of the represented companies.

> And finally: The minutes of the S.Jose meeting say "Next meeting will 
> be in Paris, preceding and/or following XML Europe 2000 in June. Steve 
> Pepper's suggestion to have the meeting at XML Scandinavia 2000 (Sweden) 
> in May was also considered."
: Have you fixed the days for Paris already
> (we are booking hotels and flights at the moment) and made a decision 
> about a meeting in Sweden (pro or cons)?

Literally nobody (but me) wanted to go to Sweden.  That idea was
rejected, apparently mostly because in the very next month many
(including myself) were going to be in Paris anyway.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc.
srn@techno.com  http://www.techno.com  ftp.techno.com

voice: +1 972 517 7954
fax    +1 972 517 4571

Suite 211
7101 Chase Oaks Boulevard 
Plano, Texas 75025 USA