Re: Charter: Participating Member conditions

[Hans Holger Rath <hhr@step.de>]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:
> 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.

Thanks!

> > 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.

Ooops. What about Lycos, Barnes and Noble, Random House, BMG,
BOL, (scientific) Springer, Gruner & Jahr, Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag,
etc. etc.

They all belong to Bertelsmann (Bertelsmann is the third or fourth
largest media company in the world right after AOL-Times Warner
and Disney) and STEP will definitely not represent their interest.

I think that in the time of global concentration of companies
to global players the term "organization" has to be defined
more precisely and it should tend to be open and not restrictive
-- why? because we want to promote TMs and not prevent people
from participation. Think about it.

BTW: STEP Infotek does not longer belong to the STEP Group.
They are owned 100% by Infostream, they just kept the name
and the logo.

So it's just Graham and myself we are talking about. What I wanted
to achieve was an easy way that Graham and I can participate the
meetings. Graham is the tekkie, he will develop TM software. I am
the consultant bringing the content-oriented issues/requirements
as input.

> > -     "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, ..."
>
> >       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:

I just asked (and not proposed) what the formal way would be to
be considered (for voting) as a Participating Member? That's it.
 
> (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?

I think you answered to this option in one of your other replies
proposing a change in the charter regarding the question of
"Who is a founding Participating Member". Of course, I like it
and would be happy if the change will be approved!
 
> >       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?

Sam and Didier replied already that nobody knew before the charter 
was out how to get a Participating Member and the status/power
of such a membership. And that was what I wanted to express.

> > 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 was not clear for me and that was the reason for my email. 
I just read the charter and took it *very* seriously (because 
I am paranoid :-).

> 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.

It might be a language problem (you know that I am not a native English
speaker/writer) which gave you this kind of impression. We do not want
to control, we want to participate and bring our input into the
further development.

> As far as I can see, STEP's behavior so far has not demonstrated
> STEP's willingness to contribute to the achievement of consensus.

Please, remember our SC34 meeting in Granada and the template 
discussion. You convinced us (Norway) not to come up with
further concerns about ISO/IEC 13250 at that point in time. 
We agreed to find another way to introduce our ideas (which 
are on the agenda for TopicMaps.Org right now). 

STEP is willing to achieve a consensus -- it will not work 
without a consensus because that's standards business and we 
know that!

> 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.

You do not have to worry! We want to have a stable XML TMs definition
with some semantics around which allow us to implement and sell 
a great piece of software -- a solution for everybody who needs
large scale TMs. That's it.

> > 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)?

So nothing decided for Paris so far. I just want to remind that some
of us will -- still -- participate in the SC34 meeting on Sunday, 
2000/06/11. I would be happy to meet Friday 2000/06/16 afternoon 
and evening, right after the closing session ... ooops I am again 
acting like I am already a member of this group; sorry for that.

Regards and have a nice weekend,
--Holger

-- 
   \/\X\   Hans Holger Rath .................................................
      \X\  STEP Electronic Publishing Solutions GmbH .... http://www.step.de/
   \   \X\ Director Consulting .................... mailto:consulting@step.de
\  /   /X/ Technologiepark Würzburg-Rimpar ......... phoneto:+49.9365.8062.63
 \ \  /X/  Pavillon 7 ................................ faxto:+49.9365.8062.66
  \/\/X/   D-97222 Rimpar, Germany ............... mobileto:+49.172.66.90.427