---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Subject: [oasis-board-comment] Appeal to OASIS-Appeal-001
To: "oasis-board-comment@lists.oasis-open.org" <oasis-board-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>,
tc-administration@lists.oasis-open.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Greetings,
This is an appeal to the OASIS Board of Directors with respect to the
decision taken by TC Admin regarding OASIS-Appeal-001. The background
of this case, with the original appeal to TC Admin, and the ruling by
TC Admin can be found in [1]( and copied in the appendix for
convenience) and will not be repeated here.
As per TC process [2], since we are appealing the action of the TC
Administrator, a new appeal is being made to the OASIS Board of
Directors. We would like the Board to reverse the decision of the TC
Administrator and require the TOSCA TC to go through a re-chartering
process for the reasons outlined below, and laid out in the original
appeal. The appellants are fully supportive of the new charter,
though we are concerned that the incorrect process was followed for
its approval.
The TC Administrator correctly identifies the critical issue on appeal:
The crucial question in this situation is: "Did the changes made
broaden the TOSCA charter; that is, did they make it possible for the
TC to undertake work that it could not do under the original
charter?"
But the TC Administrator was not the first person to ask and answer
that question. The representatives of the TC stated at the appeal
hearing that they did not consider the TC charter in need of changing.
However, it came to light that other members of the TC were uncertain
enough about the scope of the TC for the TC to agree to the process of
"clarification" to settle their concerns over scope.
Since the TC undertook this change in the charter to deal with a scope
concern, the TC Administrator erred in deciding that the
"clarification" had no effect on the scope of the TC. Clearly the
"clarification" settled scope concerns in the minds of members of the
TC since the ballot was successful.
However agreeing on less ambiguous words is different from
acknowledging that the IPR scope of a TC may have actually been
widened, and we believe that TC Administrator and the TC Chairs have
confused ambiguity with scope, which has resulted in the same language
being inserted contained as both the in and out of scope.
The evidence offered by the TC leadership clearly established the
intent to resolve scope concerns of TC members, not by narrowing, but
by copying text from the out of scope section to the in-scope section.
That they choose to call it a "clarification" doesn't change the
actions of the TC.
We therefore request that the Board reverses the ruling of
OASIS-Appeal-001 and require the TOSCA TC to re-charter as laid out
in 2.12 of the TC Process [3].
Signed: Martin Chapman (Oracle), Patrick Durusau (Individual).
[1]
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tosca/201306/msg00005.html
(copied in the appendix below)
[2]
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#appeals
[3]
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#rechartering
Appendix: Copy of Ruling from TC Admin
- ---------------------------
Subject: [OASIS-Appeal-001] Decision
. From: Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>
. To: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, Patrick Durusau
<patrick@durusau.net>,
jdurand@us.fujitsu.com, "Paul C
(Paul.Lipton@ca.com) Lipton" <paul.lipton@ca.com>,
smoser@de.ibm.com
. Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:27:22 -0400
________________________________________
Summary:
On 09 April 2013, the TOSCA TC approved a Special Majority Vote to
clarify its charter. On 01 May 2013, I announced the clarified charter
to the membership of OASIS. On 16 May 2013, OASIS members Martin
Chapman, Patrick Durusau and Jacques Durand submitted a written appeal
to TC Administration stating their belief that the changes to the
TOSCA charter expand the charter's scope and requesting that I
invalidate the vote approving the clarification and require the TC to
instead make the change by rechartering [1]. The detailed facts are
laid out in an email to the parties involved and to the
tc-administration@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list on 30 May 2013 [2].
After considering the issues raised in the appeal, the changes to the
charter approved by the TC and the definition of charter clarification
in the OASIS TC Process, I am satisfied that the changes approved by
the TOSCA TC fall within the meaning of charter clarification and that
the TC does not need to recharter. The appeal is denied.
Details of my decision are below. After the discussion, steps are
provided for appealing this decision should any party wish to do so.
1. Details of this decision
1.a The appeal
The appeal raised two issues with the changes made to the charter:
a) "the new charter places an item within the scope of the TC which
the original charter had explicitly declared as out of scope, thus
widening not narrowing the scope of the TC."
b) "The original charter specified that work on standardizing concrete
component types, whether vendor specific or not, would be done in
other, yet to be chartered, Technical Committees. Changing this and
bringing this work into the TOSCA TC widens the scope of the original
TC."
I agree with the appellants that if either of these assertions is
true, then the TC did indeed expand its scope and thus could not
approve the changes as a charter clarification. To determine whether
they are true, we first review the changes made to the charter.
1.b Changes made to the charter
In its Special Majority Vote, the TC voted on changes contained in a
red-lined version of the charter that was linked from the ballot [3].
Those specifically relevant to the appeal are:
a) Item 1. listed in the "Out of Scope" section was changed from:
"1. The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of
concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates.
However, standardization of a basic set of concrete component types,
relationship types and properties is intended to be enabled by this
work, and could begin in parallel with this project, with appropriate
coordination."
to (with <insert>s and <delete>s flagged)
"1. The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of
concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates.
However, standardization of a basic set of <insert>non-vendor specific</>
concrete component types, relationship types and properties<insert>,
which
includes all attributes of the type and all contained elements, </> is
intended to be enabled by this work <delete>, and could begin in parallel
with this project, with appropriate coordination</>.
b) A new item 3. was added to the list of items "specifically in scope":
"3. Standardization of a basic set of non-vendor specific, concrete
component types, relationship types and properties, which includes
all attributes of the type and all contained elements."
1.c The meaning of clarifying a charter
Charter clarification is discussed in section 2.11 of the OASIS TC
Process [4]. It begins by stating:
"A TC may clarify its Charter only for the purpose of removing
ambiguity or for narrowing the scope of the topic defined by
the Charter. The TC may not broaden or otherwise change its
scope of the topic of work."
The crucial question in this situation is: "Did the changes made
broaden the TOSCA charter; that is, did they make it possible for the
TC to undertake work that it could not do under the original charter?"
The first item listed as of out of scope in the original charter was
"The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of
concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates."
That item was then immediately qualified with a second sentence that
read "However, standardization of a basic set of concrete component
types, relationship types and properties is intended to be enabled by
this work.".
The second sentence clearly limited the extent of the work deemed out
of scope. It retained for the TC the right to produce *basic* concrete
component types -- whatever that may mean in practice -- under the
charter. We can all agree that this could have been written much
better than it was. However, the effect of the sentence is quite
clear: *basic* component types were always within scope.
Did the addition of the words "non-vendor specific" and "which
includes all attributes of the type and all contained elements" to the
second sentence expand the scope of the work it permitted? I take them
instead to be an effort to better explain what is meant by a *basic*
component type - as efforts to limit the extent of what the limiting
sentence itself allows. They do not have the effect of expanding the
scope.
Did the addition of the new item to the in-scope list expand the
charter? Given that the words it are identical to the words used in
the "However" sentence, it cannot. It simply addresses the ambiguity
caused by having in-scope work embedded in the out-of-scope section of
the document. Once again, we can all agree that the original language
could have been better, but this does not change the overall meaning
of scope of the charter.
Lastly, did the deletion of the words "and could begin in parallel
with this project, with appropriate coordination" from the end of the
first out-of-scope item change the scope? The appeallants assert that
these words meant that the work on basic component types would be done
"in other, yet to be chartered, Technical Committees." I think this is
a stretch. The sentence does not specify in any way where the work
might be done and does not use the words "other Technical Committee"
or anything like it. A more straightforward reading of that clause is
that it allowed the TOSCA TC to start the work on basic component
types in parallel with work on the specification itself "with
appropriate coordination."
In conclusion, I find that the original charter enabled the TC to work
on "basic component types" because of the language limiting the extent
of the first out-of-scope item. I find that the additional words
inserted into that sentence simply attempt to better describe what is
meant by the word "basic." I find that the repetition of that second
sentence in the in-scope section of the charter simply addresses the
ambiguity of placement in the original charter. Lastly, I find that
the words ". and could begin in parallel with this project." does not
indicate that another TC was anticipated but rather was a procedural
note on when work on a basic type could start.
I find that the TC has simply eliminated ambiguity from their charter.
I affirm the clarification vote and the resulting charter clarification.
2. Procedure for appealing this decision
Appeal of this decision can be made by any party to the OASIS Board of
Directors.
To appeal this decision, send the appeal to
oasis-board-comment@lists.oasis-open.org and copy the TOSCA TC and
tc-administration@lists.oasis-open.org. A copy of this decision is
being mailing to the oasis-board-comment mailing list for reference.
Please reference [OASIS-Appeal-001] in the subject line to ensure
continuity of the record across the respective mailing lists.
- --- References
[1] Email: "Appeal to the charter clarification recently made by the
TOSCA TC," 16 May 2013:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-administration/201305/msg00000.html
[2] Email: "[OASIS-Appeal-001] Background and Facts for the Action
Being Appealed," 30 May 2013:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-administration/201305/msg00024.html
[3] Red-lined version of the TOSCA charter approved by the TC:
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=48749&wg_abbrev=tosca
[4] TC Process, section 2.11 TC Charter Clarification:
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process
- ---- end ----
- --
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/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=DZjK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----