Re: Charter: Participating Member conditions

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

[Daniel Koger:]
> No one questions the contributions that STEP has made.  Personally I
> think we would be remiss in not accepting member companies as
> individual sponsors under the charter.  However, I think we are
> making this a much bigger issue than it need to be.

Do you have a proposal for making it a smaller issue?

> The comment was made that there were not two consecutive F2F
> meetings in Europe to allow European companies the chance to become
> founding companies.  Well there can be.  The next two F2F meetings
> could be held in Europe, and under the auspices of the un-ratified
> charter, a vote can be taken to add the attending companies.  At
> this point there is no difference between the companies added in
> Europe and those originally attending in America.

I've been operating under the impression that we were going to have
two organizational meetings and them move forward with a charter.  It
is a fact of life that organisms that make no distinction between
their insides and their outsides cannot live.  We could go on
indefinitely making no distinction between the insiders and the
outsiders, so that every meeting is a meeting of founders, but we will
never accomplish anything that way, and the whole project will be
vulnerable to utter destruction at every meeting.

> The ICE-AG has never differentiated founding vs. non-founding.  XTM
> need be no different.

But Daniel, you yourself just said that it did, when you made it clear
that you weren't allowed to vote in ICE until you had participated in
two consecutive meetings.  That's the same (and only) distinction that
the draft Topicmaps.org charter makes between founding Participating
Members and non-founding Participating Members.

> There is however an obvious problem with the rules of continued
> participation.  Under the un-ratified charter if a participating
> member misses two face to face sessions in a row, they are out of
> the XTM as a participating member.  Due to the global nature of this
> group I think we should relax that guideline slightly.

I disagree.  Progress requires the personal commitment of everyone who
is directly involved.  People who don't come to meetings for reasons
other than force majeure are simply more committed to other things.
Rapid progress requires us to stay as lean as possible, and the "miss
2 meetings and you're out" rule is the most graceful and least
embarrassing way (for all concerned) to get lean quickly and stay
lean.  People who don't put their Participation near the top of their
list of personal priorities are not as helpful to the cause as those
who do.  If we allow people who *refuse* to bear the burden of making
progress to control, by their votes, the way in which progress is made
by those who *accept* the burden of making progress, this enterprise
will certainly fail.

> I propose that teleconferencing in be acceptable attendance.

In my own mind, anyway, teleconferencing is a necessary evil, and it
is at best an inadequate substitute for a face-to-face meeting.  I am
opposed to combining teleconferences with face-to-face meetings, on
the grounds that it is utterly unfair to those who took the huge extra
trouble to attend in person.  It also interferes greatly with the
whole purpose of face-to-face meetings, namely making rapid progress
in developing the consensus to be reflected in the evolving Spec.

Attendance at face-to-face meetings is the single most convincing
indication of personal commitment, and, in my own experience, it is a
necessary aspect of sharing the ordeal of getting this kind of project
successfully and adequately done.  Having the Participating Membership
consist only of people who prove themselves to be both committed and
able (able, that is, physically, emotionally, and financially) is not
only desirable; it's necessary.

If a Participating Member cannot attend on account of force majeure
but can participate in a teleconference instead (such as from a
hospital room or a refugee camp), then I think it's reasonable to
allow him/her to participate in a face-to-face meeting by telephone.
But not simply because it's inconvenient to show up in person.

You may be thinking, at this point, that I'm just trying to keep the
number of Participating Members small.  Well, no, not really, but I do
believe that a small committee can work faster than a big one can, so
it won't bother me at all if we have a small, rather than a large,
number of Participating Members.  My main goal, however, is that
each and every Participating Member really counts and really pulls
her/her own weight.  I think that's just basic.

> I also propose that we move the number of missed sessions to three
> potentially with no more than two on a given continent.

I oppose this idea.  We cannot afford to excuse anyone from attending
meetings and still regard him/her as a Participating Member.  We are
not forming as many committees as there happen to be continents where
there are interested people.  We are forming exactly one committee
because we are creating exactly one cogent Specification.  In order
for the one committee to make consistent progress at an acceptable
rate, consistent attendance by all Participating Members is absolutely
required.

Please note that the draft charter specifies no
consistency-of-attendance requirement for anyone but Participating
Members.  Special guests, for example, may come to any meetings at
the pleasure of the Participating Members.

The locations where we hold meetings should be decided by the
Participating Members, on whatever basis they decide.  It is easy to
imagine the Participating Members doing a lot of horse-trading about
this question, and they must be free to do that.  They should also
recognize the extreme unfairness, to at least some of them, of always
having meetings on just one or two continents, but that issue can be
resolved only by them.

Worthwhile accomplishments are rarely easy or cheap, and control over
worthwhile accomplishments requires commitment.  This is all about who
gets to vote.  The draft charter is designed in such a way that
substantive participation, including meeting attendance, is the price
of voting power.  There are many other kinds of substantive
participation and contribution to the cause, but voting requires
attendance.  I believe that's the right way, the fair way, and the
most-likely-to-succeed way.

-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