Re: The TRAC reconsidered

["eduardo.gutentag" <Eduardo.Gutentag@eng.sun.com>]

Jon Bosak wrote on 28 Nov 1999 20:02:22 -0800 (PST)
> 
> I'm reconsidering the decision that some of us came to over lunch
> in San Jose during the OASIS/CEFACT meeting.  It has occured to
> me that the dual advisory committee method we proposed as an
> interim solution doesn't map well to where I thought we would be
> going in the long run, which seems to be the idea of autonomous
> committees, or at least committees whose voting membership (that
> is, who's a member and who's not) can be run on autopilot.

I'm at a loss trying to understand what to me appears to be non sequitur
coming from an unexpected quarter...I would have thought that it is precisely
because an interim solution does not map well to an ultimate solution (either
because the latter is not known yet or because it would take too long to
implement) that the interim solution is called, and conceived of as, an interim
solution.

> 
> The long-term part of this project is driven by the requirement
> to put minimum demands on the central authority, in particular
> minimum demands for oversight.  This suggests a structure that
> operates from the bottom up, not one that is directed from the
> top down.  If non-hierarchical direction is a basic structural
> feature of the end state, then I don't think it's a good idea to
> create an interim solution with a structure designed to operate
> over a relatively long time from the top down.

Although I feel like saying "see above regarding the relationship between end
state and interim solution", that would not be enough. The salient feature of
the TRAC proposal was that it was not supposed to be top down inasmuch as that
was possible given the current bylaws. I don't know why you see it as
such...Please see below.

> 
> I know that this contradicts the statement I made in San Jose
> that the interim process has to be able in theory to function
> indefinitely.  I didn't realize the organizational overhead
> implied by this position.

I don't think I agree with your assessment of the organizational
overhead.

> 
> Let me review the possible interim solutions and maybe you'll see
> what I mean.
> 
>    Interim solution 1.
> 
>       Leave the existing structure alone until we get a new one
>       in place through changes to the bylaws.  This assumes we
>       know just when that's going to happen.  Personally, I find
>       this level of uncertainty either unacceptable or so close
>       to it that I can't tell the difference right now.  But a
>       case could be made for it.  So far I think that only one
>       person has suggested this alternative, but others may feel
>       the same way and just not be saying anything.  If a
>       majority is in favor of just leaving the existing structure
>       alone as an interim solution, I need to know that.

I don't think the problem with this solution is an issue of uncertainty.
I believe that the problem is that we have no means of starting new
working groups or committees or whatever it is that we need to start.
There is at least one group that has been trying to get started
ever since Granada without much success, mainly impeded by the lack
of a clear path. Leaving the existing structure alone would mean
that we would enter a period of total paralysis for an indefinite
period of time.
> 
>    Interim solution 2.
> 
>       Institute an advisory committee of the board to create and
>       maintain technical subcommittees and to forward the reports
>       of technical subcommittees (in the form of specifications)
>       to the board for its disposition, in particular to propose
>       the question of the acceptance of the specification by the
>       OASIS membership as an OASIS Technical Resolution.  This

The above may have been what you agreed to during the San Jose meeting,
but it's not what I proposed. The emphasis is all wrong ;-) The proposal
actually was meant to answer the questions that what you outline as
solution 3 raises, and which I'm surprised no one has raised in this
forum. In fact, the proposal was intended as a merger of solution
3 and solution 2. See below.

>       has been our plan for the last week, but it troubles me
>       that this structure of "board => advisory committee =>
>       technical subcommittee" does not map without a fair amount
>       of reorganization to the desired end state "board => TC".
>       So if you figure that we are going to have a complete
>       solution mapped out by Paris (if not well before), then
>       reorganizing everyone only to reorganize them again a few
>       months later is not a pleasant thought.  When I also
>       consider the fact that our existing committees map very
>       nicely to the probable end state, then I feel reluctant to
>       disturb them structurally.
> 
>    Interim solution 3.
> 
>       Fix the existing committee structure.  This could be done
>       through formal appointment of new committees and
>       recertification of existing committees by formal resolution
>       and appointment of voting members.

Who will fix it? Who will appoint and recertify, resolve and appoint? The only
possible  answer in this context is "the Board". However, the board is too
busy with other issues and it simply cannot deal with this. If it does, it
will take forever. I find it hard to envision the Board acting with more
alacrity on these issues than it has acted over the past year just because we
wish it to do so. How will the board cope with the hundreds of TCs you
envision mushrooming in Oasis in the coming months? Even if we do come with a
final proposal by the Paris meeting, that is seven months away. While you
believe  that we will have finished our business before that date, I am of a
more pessimistic outlook, particularly if we go the autopilot/ automaton way.
> 
>       Observations about solution 3:
> 
>       - This solution avoids structural transitions.  If we
>         keep existing committees at their present organizational
>         level, then our long-term solution can be accomplished
>         largely by adding a membership autopilot to the bylaws
>         so that voting membership in the TCs and their
>         subcommittees does not have to be overseen by any
>         creating body (except in rare cases, by appeal).
This can also be accomplished with the other solution.
> 
>       - If, as assumed in Solution 2, the board has the power
>         to create an advisory committee that has the power to
>         create technical subcommittees that are themselves
>         empowered to draft reports back up the chain (which I
>         think it does), then the board has the power to appoint
>         those committees directly, because it would be absurd to
>         say of any committee that it could create subsidiary
>         entities more powerful than itself.
It is not a question of power, it is a question of time, resources
and priorities.

> 
>       - I think that specifications developed by committees
>         that are intended for submission to the OASIS membership
>         by the board can be considered advisory reports to the
>         board.  So in the case of our current technical
>         committees, the task of the board is not to create them
>         but to put their creation on record (recertify them) and
>         determine their voting membership.

Yes.
> 
>       - Properly appointed committees would apparently
> 	conflict with the bylaws only in the matter of their
> 	names, which (given our continuing diligence in solving
> 	this problem) is not something I think we need to worry
> 	about while we're putting a long-term solution in place.

I think I agree with Terry regarding Board appointed committees:
	> I think we must.  They won't be properly established if not.
	> As these committees have not existed in the past, giving the
	> newly established committees proper names per the bylaws should
	> pose no problem.  And ignoring the bylaws in our present state
	> of knowledge would prejudice the legitimacy of the committees.


> 
>       - The problem of providing a quorum remains a difficult
>         one, but it is invariant under the choice between
>         solutions 2 and 3.

Right.

> 
> I'd like us to seriously consider interim solution 3 before committing
> to the multiple top-level advisory committees of interim solution 2.

Let me rephrase what you presented above as interim solution 2, in light
of what I actually proposed in San Jose (but before that, a note on
the TRAC name: this was just an attempt to find something pronounceable;
the first crack at it was TCAC, with the emphasis on the TC rather than
the TR):

	Institute an advisory committee of the board to fix the
	existing committee structure. Existing committees would
	become sub-committees of the AC, and the AC would have
	the power to create new subcommittees. Both in the case of
	existing committees and in the case of new ones, the AC 
        would appoint the voting members [this does NOT preclude 
        self-nomination]. Regarding the reports of the subcommittees,
	the AC would forward them to the Board ***with a recommendation***
	as regards the Board's disposition [pronounced 'rubber-stamp'].
	[[another possibility: the AC would forward to the Board only those
	recommendations that the AC finds should be presented to the
	OASIS membership as an OASIS Technical Resolution]]

	The only change for the existing committees would be as
	regards the status of members as voting or non-voting [note:
	this is not different than what would happen under the interim
	solution 3]
	
	The members of the AC would initially be all current TC chairs,
	plus the Oasis CTO. Whether future TC chairs would become members
	of the AC ex officio should be debated.

What follows regarding interim solution 3 and existing TCs applies
equally well to the above, except that the word "board" should be
replaced by "AC".


> 
> With the temporary exception of their names, I think that our existing
> TCs would only need to do the following to become completely compliant
> with our implied process:
> 
>    1. Get formally appointed by the board; this means a
>       charter (including deliverables, schedule, etc.) and a set
>       of voting members appointed by name in a written resolution
>       formally approved by the board.
> 
>    2. Start using Robert's at the committee level, at least in
>       theory.  In practice this means (a) using a majority vote
>       as the mechanism for deciding substantive questions and (b)
>       using the rest of the process only when someone thinks it's
>       necessary to do so; that is, to make sure that it's there
>       when it's needed and that everyone knows that.
> 

I probably could add more, but this is long enough, I have to leave
for a dentist appointment, and I wanted to get this to you before your
trip.

Eduardo

> When we briefly poked our heads down this path before (about 10 days
> ago), I suggested the following procedure, which I now think is a bad
> one, for blessing existing committees in a way that meets quorum
> requirements:
> 
>    Ask the chair of each committee to provide a paragraph
>    describing the goal of the committee (this should already be
>    on file somewhere) together with a list of what he or she
>    considers to be its actual current membership.  "Actual
>    membership" means the people who are known to be making
>    material contributions to the work of the committee and who
>    habitually vote when a question is put to them; otherwise the
>    committees will be unable to achieve a quorum.  Submit the
>    goal and current membership to the board for approval as the
>    committee charter.  If the chair is unable to form a list as
>    described, treat it as a new committee according to the
>    procedure below.
> 
> Now I think that it would be better to use self-nomination rather than
> putting chairs on the spot by asking them who the voting members
> should be.  By way of demonstration, I've put a revised proposal for
> such a process in an accompanying message under the subject line
> "Possible interim process fix."
> 
> Please comment after you've had a chance to look at the other message.
> In particular, please attempt to answer the following questions:
> 
> 1. Are there other viable solutions besides the three that
>    I've listed above?
> 
> 2. Which solution do you favor at this point?
> 
> Since I'm leaving for four days beginning December 1 and may not
> be able to establish mail contact again until December 4, it
> would be good to get quick answers to these questions from the
> people on this list who have signed up to participate as voting
> members of the PAC.
> 
> Jon