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

["Daniel Koger" <dkoger@speakeasy.org>]

I guess I clouded my main point Steve.  There is essentially no difference
between founders and participating members who have been through the two
meeting process.  I think that that in and of itself is the crux of turning
this into a smaller issue.  The European companies which could not be
founders should attend two F2F meetings.  Upon acceptance - issues resolved.
We still end up with a homogenous group of Participating Members whether
founders or not.

Point taken on the commitment requirements.  I withdraw my suggestion.

Daniel


----- Original Message -----
From: Steven R. Newcomb <srn@techno.com>
To: <dkoger@speakeasy.org>
Cc: <hhr@step.de>; <xtm-wg@egroups.com>; <topicmapmail@infoloom.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 4:01 PM
Subject: [xtm-wg] Re: Charter: Participating Member conditions


> [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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
> Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/1/_/337252/_/952820241/
>
> -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=xtm-wg&m=1
>
>