[xtm-wg] Did we vote to dissolve subgroups?

[Andrius Kulikauskas <ms@ms.lt>]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
No blistered feet. No crowd. No travel. Intraware invites you to attend
a virtual tradeshow: Ensuring Scalable and Secure E-Business Systems.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9219/4/_/337252/_/969324087/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

Hi, Steve, Michele, All,
     Just a technical point.  Is it true that we have already voted to
dissolve the subgroups at the October meeting?  
     I remember the idea of dissolving the subgroups as being written in
the minutes, available at http://www.egroups.com/xtm-wg/files/

> An intermediate meeting should be held in mid October, at which the Subgroups will deliver their work, and then be dissolved.
> Version 1.0 of the XTM Specification should be completed between mid October and early December.

It surprised me at the time, but it was a very busy meeting, and I made
no mention of it, waiting to see if it would be put to a vote.  To my
understanding, no such motion was ever made or voted on.  The motion
that did pass states:

> MOTION: RESOLVED: The Modeling Subgroup's request to extend its mandate is denied, and we charter the following new
> Subgroups:
> 
> Interchange Syntax Subgroup [ISS]
> 
> The mission of the Interchange Syntax Subgroup is to develop an interchange syntax for topic maps.
> 
> Conceptual Modeling Subgroup [CMS]
> 
> It is the mission of the Conceptual Modeling Subgroup to:
> 
>      Complete the 13250 conceptual model 
>      Develop the XTM conceptual model 
>      Define relationships to other conceptual models 
> 
> Use Cases Subgroup [UCS]
> 
> It is the mission of the Use Cases Subgroup to:
> 
>      Identify representative use cases of XTM, 
>      Derive requirements of XTM from the use cases 
>      Evaluate XTM against requirements 
> 
> ADOPTED.

     It's a technical point, but my opinion is that no decision to
dissolve the subgroups was ever made.  In fact, the minutes, though very
useful, reflect Michele's notes, which tended to record the
conversation, without reference to who spoke or whether it was agreed by
the group or not.  All of the votes that we made were extremely
carefully worded, and they make no mention of dissolution.  There was no
opportunity or reason to discuss whether or not to dissolve.
     I think it would be good to clarify this before the meeting so we
don't have to waste time then.  Some argued that we will all be working
together after October and therefore the subgroups must be dissolved. 
However, it may be that our work together is helped by the subgroups.  I
myself prefer to leave this matter open as it would help me if I myself
had the opportunity to take initiative to collect more use cases through
the Use Case Subgroup.  At the meeting we can always dissolve or
continue the subgroups as we see fit, but it would be unfortunate to
start without knowing where we are starting from on this issue.
     I write in response to Patrick Durusau's letter:

> I am sure everyone in the Use Case subgroup would like to make the October
> meeting a productive one (particularly since we dissolve thereafter).

     Thanks,

Andrius Kulikauskas
Director
Minciu Sodas
http://www.ms.lt
ms@ms.lt
+1 (773) 586-6280 in Chicago through September



To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com