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

[Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM>]

I think the purpose of CSC from the beginning was the resolution
of administrivia, *not* coordination, cooperation or clearinghousing.

We'd have to change both the goal and the attitude of CSC to
attain what you and Tim obviously think is needed, or we would
have to put some other mechanism in place. But whatever is done
would have to be done explicitly, not just having an existing
mechanism silently assume a different role.


Anne Hendry wrote:
> 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
>>  
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 

-- 
Eduardo Gutentag               |         e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM
Web Technologies and Standards |         Phone:  +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc.          |
W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD