RE: [xtm-wg] From the chair of TopicMaps.Org

["Daniel Rivers-Moore" <daniel.rivers-moore@rivcom.com>]

I'll be brief:

1) For the record -

Like Eric, I heard of no proxy in Dallas. I raised the objection that no 2/3
approval had been given to the Dallas spec, but I accepted Sam's observation
in Paris that my objection was too late and fell at the timeliness hurdle.

2) For the future -

I thoroughly applaud Sam's outline of what needs to happen now. ISO SC34,
and TopicMaps.Org, and Steve and Michel are all part of the TopicMaps
community. We need to work together. We will work together - we are
condemned to doing so because we all believe that this baby that Steve,
Michel and others have brought into the world needs to grow up, walk, and
then run.

3) For the sake of form -

That the February document be renamed 1.1 seems to me to be nothing short of
correct. That the Conceptual Model and the Processing Model and Annex F all
need community review on the road to XTM 1.2, is clear. I welcome that. In
no way do I want the Conceptual Model to be immune from such review. It is a
vital part of the spec, and so need full and fair review and improvement
wherever it falls short of what is needed.

Thank you Eric and Sam for your cool-headedness and your clarity.
Thank you Steve and Michel for your passion and your vision.

Kind regards

Daniel
(writing in my own capacity and as chair of the erstwhile XTM Conceptual
Modelling subgroup)

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Freese [mailto:efreese@sprynet.com]
Sent: 27 March 2001 03:21
To: xtm-wg@yahoogroups.com; topicmapmail@infoloom.com
Subject: RE: [xtm-wg] From the chair of TopicMaps.Org


Thank you Sam!!!

I didn't want to start a pissing contest.  I wanted clear the air some
(possibly not as much as I had hoped) so that we all could start moving
forward again, maybe along parallel paths, but at least in the same
direction.

There has been a lot of water under the bridge in this process. Mistakes
have been made by all involved. XTM is out there and getting good feedback.
What I don't want to happen is for all the political infighting to diminish
the work that has been done or prevent us from completing other work yet to
be completed.

I have a great deal of respect for the members of TopicMaps.Org, past and
present. I wouldn't spend my weekends attending meetings with you all if I
didn't. It is possible to disagree and still respect the gifts and
contributions of each member. I consider my friendship with many members of
the AG a good example of this. We have violently disagreed on some matters,
but I still enjoy working with and learning from them.

Someone very wise said at the beginning of this process that we have to
remember that we are working with passionate, emotional, stubborn human
beings and that these traits, while sometimes infuriating, are also what
makes these same humans essential to producing a good product.

> [eric]
> > > I ruled that a qualifying vote did not occur at the Dallas meeting
> > > (not enough members present) or at any time prior to
> December 4 or
> > > at any time before the Paris meeting.
>
> I will still go to the mat with you on this one Eric, for three
> reasons:
>
> First, Roberts classifies these procedural issues as rules
> breaches, to
> which objections have to be "timely." If we start unravelling rules
> breaches, we could undermine XTM all the way back to Swindon. Roberts
> (11th, and current, edition) says that the reason for that objections
> have to be timely is to protect the organization from such unravelling
> -- which is EXACTLY what is happening here, is it not? (In Paris, I
> raised this as a mere possibility -- now it is happening before our
> eyes.)

I agree that timeliness is an issue and thought we had that resolved in
Paris. I would like nothing more than to not look back on this again.

> Second, rapid publication is of the essence -- it's a requirement of
> the normative portion of the XTM spec that it be "prepared quickly."
> Given the timing in the bylaws for email votes, there was no way that
> any such vote could have been taken before DC. Therefore, the
> ruling of
> the cahir puts the editors in a retrospective double-bind. The
> requirement for quick publication contradicts the requirement for a
> vote.

Not necessarily, we all could have voted in DC, but that's 20/20 hindsight.
Water under the bridge.

> However, third, rapid publication fulfilled the spirit of the bylaws.
> The mission of TopicMaps.Org was greatly enhanced by the DC
> deliverables -- we got traction. Does anyone seriously believe that a
> draft release would have achieved this? Even if the 2/3 ruling is
> correct, "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

The spec was released in draft and it got traction. I don't know how many
people used the Core document without the draft spec along side.  Again
water under the bridge.

> [steve]
> > let's ignore the procedural stuff, and get to the heart of the
> matter.
> >
> [steve]
> > property related to topic maps must be given to the public *quickly*
> > in order to maximize public benefit.
>
> Agreed. People, who do you want doing this work? There's an implicit
> answer to that question in any counsel of delay.
>
> [steve]
> > I'm not sure that anyone other than the editorial team --
> Michel, Sam
> > Hunting, Murray Altheim, and I -- had even read the draft portions
> > of the Spec, because not one substantive question was asked about
> > them.
>
> Yes, that's the historical record. To be fair, the PM is not easy to
> understand, and certainly more pedagogical work is required. It is a
> powerful idea, but has only been tested by a few.
>
> I think we should be looking at the PM as a community and come to some
> collective wisdom about it. The reason, Steve, that I regret some of
> the tone of this missive -- though no one enjoys a brilliant polemic
> more than I do! -- is that it may make that collective process harder.
>
> Steve, I was going to say this to Daniel on the CM, but now I will say
> it to you on the PM -- magpie-like, I picked up on a story about the
> Academy awards: a professor had each student in his class pick the
> winners, and then averaged the result. Surprise -- the average result
> was much more accurate than any one individual.
>
> The DTD is strong because many people have beaten on it -- the whole
> class has voted and an average has been taken. The PM and the
> CM are (I
> believe) not so strong because no real collective acceptance -- sorry
> Daniel -- of them has taken place. People need to be sold...
>
> What we should be doing is taking this opportunity to work on the PM
> (and the CM) as a community as far as we can. Roberts Rules
> is there so
> that people can work together without necessarily liking or even
> trusting each other. That's why there ARE rules. In the same way,
> TopicMaps.Org is probably not going to go away -- I at least have take
> on responsibilities to it which I in good faith cannot simply abandon
> -- and so, if there is to be federated global knowledge
> interchange, it
> needs to work with you, and you with it (absent liking and
> trust, if it
> comes to that).

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!!!!  We should be working as a community (not a village,
not a monarchy) on this. N+1 heads is almost always better then N.

> [steve]
> > Thus the whole Dallas meeting -- the
> > meeting that authorized the December 4 deliverables -- was
> > retroactively rendered inoperative [because of a proxy vote.]
>
> Steve, I think you are right on the facts, but I know you are wrong on
> the law. Robert's Rules (11th edition) strongly discourages the use of
> proxies, and we in XTM privilege face to face meetings. However, the
> issue of timeliness of breach-of-rules objections is here again, in my
> view, controlling.

For the record - I was not aware of a proxy in Dallas.  I was aware of one
in Paris when the decision was made.

> [steve]
> > (This ruling is particularly
> > incomprehensible given the fact that the whole XTM Authoring Group
> > stood in front of the XML 2000 plenary on December 4 saying, in
> > effect, "Here are the Core Deliverables, here we stand united, and
> > this is our mutual accomplishment.")
>
> Yes, this is what I find so strange in the whole thing. We were all
> together, there on the podium not once but twice -- and never was any
> objection raised. Very strange. Why not call an ad hoc
> meeting to raise
> the procedural question, if in fact the issue had any substantive
> merit?

Again 20/20 hindsight.

[snipped a bunch of stuff]

> Concretely, what I think needs to happen is something like:

I'm open to suggestions as to how to proceed with the following items. These
are all items that require consensus to be successful.

> 1. The spec on the TopicMaps.org site needs to be renumbered
> 1.1. To do
> otherwise creates confusion in the marketplace and that doesn't serve
> the goals of TopicMaps.Org.
>
> 2. I appeal the motion of the chair both on the validity of the Dallas
> vote, and the lack of a prepublication vote, on the grounds that the
> breach of rules objections were not timely. (I suggest that some such
> formula, though not in Roberts, like "by acclamation" be employed.)
> Someone will have to help me with the procedure here ... This will
> serve to (re)legitimate the DC deliverables.
>
> 3. The topic maps community needs to have a conversation --
> Jack Park's
> word -- on the following topics, which should lead to a 1.2
> deliverable
> at some future date:
>
>    a) the PSIs (do they need changes or additions?)
>    b) the CM (what would it take to make the community feel it should
>       be normative?)
>    c) Annex F (what would it take to make the community feel it should
>       be normative?)
>
> 4. The community is already having a discussion on the PM (Processing
> Model.




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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption!
Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide,
"Securing Your Web site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/KVNB7A/e.WCAA/bT0EAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/