Re: [xcbf] Teleconference, agenda, version 2, and my resignationfrom TC membership

["Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

Title:

Alessandro,

Do I understand correctly that with this note you 
wish to be nominated to serve as the new chair?

Alessandro Triglia wrote:
> Dear XCBF members, Chair,
>
> I see that no account has been taken of my suggested additions to the
> Agenda of this meeting.  Nor did I receive any answer or explanation
> about why my suggestion was rejected.
As chair, I set the agenda and published it to the
web site prior to the scheduled meeting. As noted
in earlier messages from the chair, the meeting will
be very short, and the focus will be on trying to
schedule two follow on meetings, to vote on some
matters of urgency - appointments of liaison, editor 
and chair.

But I did add to the agenda an item to partially
address your suggestions. This will be an update 
on the status of the XCBF 1.0 CS submission to
OASIS.
> In my understanding, the objective of the TC was to produce a standard.
> We now have a CS that is almost good for progression as an OASIS
> standard, apart from a couple of minor editorial changes that are still
No. We have a CS document that was approved by ballot
of the TC for submission to OASIS. I have submitted 
that CS document and the supporting materials required
by OASIS as called for in the ballot. This submission is
currently under review. 

We may get an update by the meeting on Friday, but if 
so, that will be ahead of the schedule set forth in the 
OASIS process.

> needed (removal of mention of BASE64 and clarification about the use of
> CXER).  It would be perfectly possible, at this point, to make these
> changes to the document in less than one day, re-approve the document as
> a CS, and submit the CS to OASIS by May 15.
I absolutely disagree. I know that I for one would
not accept the 
changes that you suggest here, so far as I understand what you
suggest without your offering a specific line by line explanation. 

For another, we have no editor to shepherd changes at this point, 
and will not vote on a new editor until the meeting Friday - this is 
a critical piece of business for the TC. 

And even if agreement could be achieved in a single day, which so
far has not held true, the next meeting is only set for one half of an
hour. We have plenty to accomplish in that limited time.

My hope is that we can set the stage for further intensive dialog 
on the issues important to you by establishing two additional 
meeting dates this Friday.
> However, this does not seem to be happening.  Rather, the Chair has
> apparently stopped pursuing the objective of the TC - to produce a
> standard.  He has apparently lost any interest in the current document
> and has decided, without any specific input from the TC and without
> hearing the views of other members - or worse, contrary to the views
> expressed by some of them - to start a new version of the document.
You are completely mistaken. Once it was agreed
by the TC 
that the CS document was to be sent to OASIS, a chain of 
events occurred. We entered a 30 day public review period. 
And we resolved and balloted the comments we received from
the public review. 

We attempted one more round of balloting to address minor
comments made in the ballot to approve the last CS, but this
ballot failed. These comments (many of them yours) have been
addressed by the editor in the v2 draft.
> The benefits of a new version of XCBF are very unclear at this point,
> and anyway, such a decision should have been the result of a thoughtful
> discussion within the TC (which has never taken place).
A v2 draft was necessary to prevent loss of your
comments, and
the resolution of those comments and those made by others by the 
editor. If you wish to see further changes, simply submit suggested
text to the list and the new editor will surely react to this. 

Since the final CS was approved to be submitted
to OASIS, and
since the next ballot to approve more minor changes failed, I came
to the conclusion that no further changes to the document could be 
agreed in what I believe to be a timely manner. 

In my opinion Alessandro, the one NO vote we got from Ed on the 
submission approval ballot would have been joined by another one 
from me if the proposals being put forward by you and John had 
gone forward.

This issue, while an absolute nit technically, has become a heated
source of contention. In my opinion, it will be months before a
solution is reached on what can only be called a trivial detail. In 
what I perceived as my responsibility to the majority of the TC,
I have done all that I could do to move the work forward.

But I have no desire any longer to suffer personal attacks, or to
spend any more of my time stirring the same stew. So, I have
resigned as editor and chair. Time for others to drive. 
> I increasingly feel that being a member of this TC has not been, in the
> last few months, the best use of my time, especially since my
> contributions and my suggestions as a member have been constantly
> disregarded by the Chair.  
Your comments on several ballots were very much
appreciated.
And all of these have been responded to on the list. But it is true
that not all of them have always been accepted.
> Therefore, I resign my TC member status immediately.  I wish to remain
> an observer in this TC.  I wish the best to the TC and the Chair and
> hope they will produce a successful standard.
I leave it to OASIS to handle this, as I am no longer
chair. But 
I would urge you to reconsider and take over as TC chair.

Phil Griffin


> Regards,
>
> Alessandro Triglia
> OSS Nokalva