[xtm-wg] astounding silence

["univers immedia" <universimmedia@wanadoo.fr>]

I'd like to express my deep concern, reading Murray's two last posts, about
how this group process can be presently understood by those - more than
200 - people suscribing to this list, among whose I suppose are many ones
already building or bound to build something in a near future, upon XTM,
and some of them wondering what trust they can put onto it.
I made some propositions lately that maybe technical issues debates and AG
inner process debates should be conducted in separate spaces. I got the
answer that elaboration of XTM specification has been a public process from
the beginning, and that everything should be treated in the open, and that
technical issues and process issues could not be considered separate
anyway. Fine. I surrender on wise arguments sustaining that. But it that is
the rule, let's follow the rule. For instance, out of that rule, I tried to
explain on this public space -  with apparent success - why such a feature
like reification had came back in the specification, out of a concern about
public understanding of the process, and because I was there when it was
discussed.
But, since Paris meeting, it seems that a great deal of communication at
"upper level" has passed through private mail, for efficiency reasons I
guess. On this public list, only Sam Hunting and I have made comments on
the release of the draft two days ago, unless I missed something. There was
no public feedback about Sam's comments ... although they were setting a
number of seemingly important questions in Sam's view.
And then we have all of a sudden Murray's post, and Eric's answer, and
Murray again, both referring to private messages and interventions. The
debate - and what important debate - goes public, but only part of it,
which is a very bad thing for clarity of it. I must say I greatly
appreciate Murray's courage to come publicly say what he's said. I'm not
sure I catch the exact measure of technical issues on DTD he's about, but
on human and process levels, I'm bound to understand his position and share
his concern. What really amazes me is the astounding public silence on this
forum surrounding Murray's decision and declarations. OK , it's Sunday ...
but ...
I'd like to read here clear viewpoints on the essence and form of Murray's
position, and singularly of present and former editors.
The group as a whole has been addressed by him. Giving the investment he
has had in this process, I think the group has to give answers - and not
only by the official voice of its chairman, but by the voice of everyone
who's been involved with Murray's work during the past year. And since the
debate is public, let these answers be public.
Steve N. had said if I remember well in Paris debates that all this group
story was grounded in trust, and that it was both its strength and
fragility. I'd like to see that really showing off now. If it's not
showing, my own trust in that group is somehow shaken.
And I guess I won't be the only one in that case.

Sincerely

Bernard



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981329140/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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