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

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

[ patrick writes]
> Sorry STEP could not attend. BTW, your X2X product is very
> impressive!

Ditto; ditto.

> most discussion on this list seems to take all the provisions
> so literally.

For me, this is so (a) because I too am paranoid (We need a "Proud
paranoids for Topic Maps" bumper sticker); (b) I've done a lot of legal
DTD work; (3) culturally, SGML is all about finding the exact right
words...

> On the one member for one organization problem ... 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.

Agreed on both counts. The proposed structure is, I think, the
technical equivalent and David Megginson's presentation on "When XML
goes bad". David points out that he freely uses James Clark's code,
becuase he *knows* James -- but obviously this is a QA/security process
that is not scaleable across the the entire web! Likewise, we in our
"Topic Map Village" *know* that Hans and Steve Pepper and Graham would
never pack a commitee -- but the committee structure has to be robust
enough to prevent such an action by any possible future participant.

> we should find the most cost effective way to rotate meetings if that
> is possible.

Agreed.

> 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

Agreed. And my company, as a service provider, regards the provisions
for use representation as a selling point.
> 
> 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.

To turn legalistic here, we're in a boot-strapping situation here -- so
the question of who is a founding member necessarily informal. It seems
reasonable to me that STEP be grandfathered in.

> 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.

Good faith by all individuals, yes -- and a structure that is robust
enough to survive individuals (me! anyone!) not acting in good faith.
See Sperberg McQueen's speech on the standards process from Philly, eh?

S.

=====
<? "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
    -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations ?>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com