Re: [ubl-csc] Re: CSC call on 26 November

[Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>]

Hi,

Since it appears as though the only people who may show up to
the CSC are the people who already discussed these topics
yesterday in the LCSC,  I don't think my discussion topic
on it's own warrants a meeting of those same people again.
Instead I'll add my thoughts to Tim's in hopes of broadening
the discussion to the rest of the chairs.

I second Tim's concern about disconnects.  So far with the new
SC's we have a fair amount of overlap, but questions are still
coming up that require cross-sc communication and we don't
have a framework for those discussions.  I like to see the
Chairs SC take a more proactive role in providing guidance
and direction for managing the workflow (and communication)
between scs and for the CSC to be the place we discuss alignment
as we go forward, rather than leaving this to ad-hoc discussions in
individual scs, leaving some people out of the loop, which will
come back to bite us later.  I've always assumed the CSC to be
the clearinghouse for cross-sc issues and the coordination of
the various scs seems to me to fall within that scope.  If that's
not within the csc's scope, though, then let's decide how else
to best make this happen (coordination/alignment between scs).

Thanks,

-A

P.S.  Since we're taking this to email and it's rather late now
(and I should be on vacation ...) I may very well not be dialing in
to tomorrow's chairs call.  I think the email route is more likely
to elicit participation at this point! :)

Tim McGrath wrote:

> i guess it may be a small attendance at the meeting so I will  put my 
> thoughts in email and we can follow it through this way.
>
> I raise this issue because it was evident at the last plenary that 
> despite the best efforts of all involved we had managed to get 
> seriously disconnected between the work of NDR and LC.  it was only 
> after the event i realised how seriously broken this process had 
> become.  in  fact, the first thing we should do is acknowledge that we 
> have not yet realigned the two groups - just bought time to do so. 
>  the situation with the work on code lists is a case in point. 
>  Obviously, this is a management issue - it has nothing to do with who 
> is right or wrong, good or bad technology, personal abilities, 
> willingness of participation, etc.  It is better management that is 
> needed.
>
> I am sure none of us want to be facing these fundamental disconnect 
> issues again at the January 2004 plenary.  We need UBL 1.0 to be a 
> technical spec. with a clear and common  ownership from the entire TC.
>
> In the past we have relied upon overlapping membership and nominal 
> liaison members to ensure we keep our work items aligned.  I do not 
> think this has been successful.  What is more, we now have 4 new 
> subcommittees to add into the equation.  
>
> The question is what else can we do?
>
> It may be that for the next 3 months the chairs group has to become 
> more proactive in its co-ordination activities.  for example, seeking 
> progress and activity reports and initiating  tasks when things are 
> not happening.  That is, perhaps we  need a project management team 
> and the chairs SC would appear to be the easiest way to do this.
>
> I am not a fan of 'management for management's sake' but I want us to 
> ensure that participants in UBL get the satisfaction of knowing their 
> work is recognized and they are making a valid contribution to the 
> results - no more dead ends, parallel developments and wheel spinning.
>
> Does anyone else have the same concerns?
>
>
> jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:
>
>>>There will be a CSC call on 26 November. Time 11:00 EST.
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Argh.  That's right when I should be on the way to the airport for
>>the flight back from Detroit, and given the expected holiday
>>crowds, I can't play games with the time.  I'd appreciate a very
>>brief summary of where you get with the discussion of coordination
>>across subcommittees; I'm betting that you won't get this resolved
>>in 15 minutes, but I'd like a hint as to where Tim is heading with
>>this so that I can think about it over the break.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-csc/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>>
>>  
>>
>
>-- 
>regards
>tim mcgrath
>phone: +618 93352228  
>postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160
>  
>
>