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

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

Thanks, Jon, for taking up this issue.  7-9 Wednesday 4 Dec works for me.
I think we'll see the benefit almost immediately from a focus in this SC
on coordination and communidation.

Speaking about the change in CSC charer, though, I'm a bit perplexed.
My original belief that the CSC was the right place for coordination
and communication, not for administration, came from two inputs.
First, the fact that there is already an 'Adnimistration' sc.
I assumed the ASC was the right place for administration.
Second, although I looked for a charter for the CSC on the OASIS site,
but didn't find one, I did go back to the first mail message
you sent to the CSC list, which states:

>Welcome to the ubl-csc mailing list.  The CSC was created by the
>UBL TC 2002.01.25 in the following resolution:
>
>   That a Chairs SC shall be created to promote communication
>   between the UBL subcommittees; that its membership shall
>   consist of the chairs of each of the UBL subcommittees plus the
>   chair and vice chair of the UBL TC; and that its chair shall be
>   the vice chair of the UBL TC.
>

Which is exactly what we need!
Did the CSC charter change from this January 2002 post?
If the CSC has been for administration, then what was/is the ASC for?

Thanks,
Anne

Eduardo Gutentag wrote:

> 7-9am Pacific on Dec 4 '03 is ok for me, unfortunately ;)
>
> Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM wrote:
>
>> | 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 in complete agreement with this.
>>
>> | 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.
>>
>> Yup. 
>> | 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 can see two alternatives here.
>>
>>    1. I can become much more active in project managing this
>>       effort at the detail level.
>>
>>    2. We can turn the CSC into a project management committee.
>>
>> It's an open question whether I could successfully execute
>> alternative 1 if I were free to do so.  I like to believe that I
>> could if I were able to focus on this, but the fact is that I've
>> gotten pretty good at the role of spokesman and talking head, and
>> I've already mapped out a schedule for the next six months based
>> on the assumption that I will be spending 100 percent of my time
>> promoting UBL, not project-managing it.  For example, I'm already
>> committed to a two-week promotional swing through Germany, Spain,
>> and Portugal (based around an invited keynote in Munich) that will
>> basically put me offline for most of January.  So alternative 1 is
>> moot, and that leaves us with some kind of collective solution as
>> the best approach to solving this.
>>
>> I agree with Tim that the CSC is the obvious group to take this
>> on.  Add up all the SC chairs, co-chairs, and secretaries, and you
>> basically have the people who are most deeply committed to this
>> effort.  I am comfortable with the idea that this group could act
>> as a steering committee. The fact that Mark chairs the CSC
>> actually fits pretty well with the thought that I will be out
>> hustling UBL adoption while the rest of you focus on project
>> integration heading into the final release in March.
>>
>> On the other hand, Eduardo is exactly right when he says:
>>
>> | 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.
>>
>> This means that there will have to be a formal decision to adopt a
>> different role for the CSC.  My hunch, however, is that no sizable
>> proportion of voting members of the TC will disagree that we need
>> better management, so I think the task here is simply to be clear
>> about the new role and how it's going to work.  Here are what
>> appear to me to be the basic features of the new regime:
>>
>>  - Weekly 1-2 hour meetings of the CSC.
>>
>>  - Specific authorization to act in a coordinative role (in other
>>    words, authorization to resolve disputes from above and to
>>    impose solutions upon the subcommittees when necessary).
>>
>>  - Specific authorization to appoint short-term ad hoc cross-SC
>>    teams to ferret out disconnects and work up proposals for their
>>    resolution.
>>
>>  - Appointment of a couple of CSC members or observers as keepers
>>    of the issues and AI lists.
>>
>> This list is probably not complete, but I think that these are the
>> basics.
>>
>> The first item (meeting regularly) is the one that we don't need
>> additional authorization to implement, so I suggest that we start
>> there and devote the first meeting to mapping out the new role for
>> the CSC that we need to propose to the TC.  We can start with the
>> list above as points for further discussion and elaboration.
>>
>> The earliest slot that I can attend for a kickoff discussion is 7-9
>> a.m. California time Thursday 4 December.  Since several of the
>> CSC members will be in Philadelphia the following week, it's
>> probably then or not until the week of 15 December.
>>
>> 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. 
>>
>>
>