I have personally always found it easier to resolve
technical issues than the politics.
The same is true of the world in general e.g.
we have a world system/standrad for the telephone - but very little resolution
of
many political issues
Cheers Phil :-(
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 2:34
AM
Subject: RE: Copyrights, standards and
trash talk (was) UN/CEFACT: consultation process for new organization
Jamie,
As
always, WELL SAID!
Let's keep the technical work continuing and coordinated
And
yes, those of us who have volunteered to deal with the "politic" will continue
to work at that, too!
At 06:37 AM
1/18/02, CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
* ** why is OASIS working hard
to preserve the ebXML brand on their TC work, to include standing up their
part of the bargain to form the ebXML management committee and continuing
to promote ebXML, while the eBTWG is removing references to ebXML * * * I
thought the agreement was that the architecture group would be joint, and
that the ebXML Coordinating Committee would harmonize the work * * *
ebXML was and is a good piece of work, and a
high water mark for intergovernmental and intervendor cooperation in its
area. Some recent discussions about it have been unnecessarily
contentious. The leadership of the affected groups are trying to find
ways to cooperate, in spite of several difficulties.
There has
been too much trash talk, and not enough clarity, in these
discussions. Here, in my own view as a participant who attempts
to remain neutral, is where we are.
= The
May 2001 arrangements for continuing the ebXML work were not executed in a
careful or open manner. Participants seemed animated by private
agendas, to the detriment of the work plan. The result was an
suboptimal but workable structure declared in a significantly inadequate
fashion. Subsequent stumbles suggest that both relevant MoUs were
poorly negotiated and poorly drafted. This was disappointing, but is a
recoverable situation. I do not care to discuss the details publicly
right now, because I believe that good faith efforts are underway to
improve the situation, without unnecessary embarrassment or
finger-pointing, and I expect those efforts to result in clear and helpful
public discussions shortly.
= The leadership of both groups have been trying to
promote coordination in good faith, though at times slowly or
unevenly. There is too much turfsmanship, and too little attention to
process architecture. Nevertheless, the actual work has been
progressing on all fronts in a spirit of cooperation and interoperation.
One example is the continuing and completely voluntary efforts of
the (CEFACT) BPSS and (OASIS) CPPA teams to remain in sync in their tightly
related models. Another is the (OASIS) UBL white paper, which frames
its planned work product within the OO-edi and ebXML layers consistent with
anticipated extensions of the (CEFACT) business model. These are
cheerful evidence that most of our technical participants are on the right
page, regardless of occasional management lapses.
= The ownership, copyright and forward control of the work
product is significant and sensitive. Intelligent adopters will not
use any of this work if it is tied up in fractious disputes over
ownership or access, inadequately reconciled requirements, or obstacles to
fair participation in future versioning. We are all groping towards an
optimal model. Disagreements about private versus public control, and
financial control, are inevitable. So are attempts to dominate the
process. As a community, we have not solved this yet. Mark, your
suggestion that all of the problems lie with CEFACT, and none with OASIS, is
neither accurate or helpful.
All of the obstacles
described above are merely politic, and do not impeach the
technical work. Also, they are all resolvable, if addressed in
good faith in a fair and transparent manner. If we failed to solve the
political issues, the work is compelling enough that I suspect a critical
mass of experts would reconvene elsewhere and continue.
(Incidentally, the same thing happened to most of my keggers in high
school. Eventually the police came, so we drove to another park,
procured more beer, and resumed the proceedings.) So a solution
of the current standards group structure issues is desirable, but not
absolutely essential.
However, the work itself is essential,
as is our spirit of cooperation. If we dissolve into contentious
factions, we cede the domain to a thousand competing proprietary forays,
years of absurd patent claims, and an unworkable Babel. This is a
sufficiently bad outcome that it should inspire all to
cooperate.
Jamie Clark
~ James Bryce
Clark ~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan
Inc. ~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic
Commerce ~ 1 818 597 9475
jamie.clark@mmiec.com jbc@lawyer.com ~ This message is
neither legal advice nor a binding signature. Ask me
why.
|