Re: [xtm-wg] Charter: Participating Member conditions

[Patrick Durusau <pdurusau@emory.edu>]

Holger,

Speaking strictly for myself and not for the topicmaps.org group, any of its
members or my sponsoring organization! (Sorry for the disclaimer but the reason
will soon be apparent.)


> 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.
>

Sorry STEP could not attend. BTW, your X2X product is very impressive!

I'm sorry but I spent ten years as a practicing attorney and saw this type of
parsing only when working on public charters for usually non-profit organization.
This is not limited to Holger's comments, which I can understand to some degree
since most discussion on this list seems to take all the provisions so literally.

My assumption was (and still is) that the charter was meant as a framework for
organizing the XML topic map group. It was not meant as a platform to dominate
others or to exclude segments of the user/vendor community. But we must define
what we are going to work on and some organizational rules for how the group will
function.

On the one member for one organization problem. I don't see this rule as
affecting how STEP may internally organize work on the group's activities but the
logistics of managing a very large group for meetings (virtual or physical) may
stretch our administrative support to the breaking point. There is also the
problem that since the group will be "voting" on its ultimate recommendation(s)
it would not be fair for the SBL (my employer) to field 30 or 40 participating
members to direct the standard one way or the other. NOTE, NOTE: I am not saying
STEP would do, contemplate or suggest such action. STEP has been an active
participant in standards activity and is a friend of those of us who cannot
afford expensive commercial software.

The initial meetings did occur in the US but I don't see that as being not
"Europe friendly." More initial meetings are about to happen in Europe. Due to
personal health reasons I will not be able to attend the European meetings this
year (next year should not be a problem) but that does not make me feel slighted
by the XTM group. I personally welcome participation in our efforst without
regard to geographic location and think we should find the most cost effective
way to rotate meetings if that is possible.

As I think Steve Newcomb has stated before that the ratio language is simply to
avoid a situation where standards are drafted without adequate user input and it
is not designed to exclude anyone. We don't have a group yet, only a collection
of people debating under what conditions they might become a group if we could
allay all the concerns with the charter. At some point the group will be fully
formed and only after that could the question even arise.

I think we should assume that all the attendees of the prior XTM organizational
meetings, STEP and other likely participants are approaching this process in good
faith. As far as I know, there has been no discussion at anytime by anyone who
expressed an interest in excluding anyone or any position from the XML topic map
group. After the European meeting(s) I would suggest that we proceed with the
assumption of good faith and get down to the business that will serve my user
community as well as those of others.

Sorry for the long rant! Holger, I hope to see you at one of the European
meeting(s) next year and working with you and other members of the STEP group on
this important topic.

Patrick



>
> 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):
>
> 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"?
>
> -       "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.
>
>         Do we have to attend the next two meetings to be considered
>         for Participating Membership or could be ask for Participating
>         Membership immediately?
>
> -       "When technology-oriented Participating Members are added,
>         technology-oriented Participating Members may not constitute
>         "an absolute majority of the resulting TopicMaps.Org
>         Specification Authoring Group."
>
>         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?).
>
> 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.
>
> 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)?
>
> 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)?
>
> Regards,
> --Holger

--
Patrick Durusau
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu