It has been observed that for organizations oft reach a
point where it is more important that no one ever do anything wrong than it
is that anyone ever do anything. I always felt
that some of the rules in the new IP were an example of this. We have had people
leave our group citing frustration at not having any open collaborative tools to
use.
If someone wanted to seed oBIX with proprietary
information, they could merely send several us us email, ate our public
addresses, and accomplish the same thing.
I like the idea of BLOGS for the committees. I like the
idea of drive-by comments. I detest the obscurity the the current IP and tools
encourage - they seem t me to be creating LESS open
standards.
tc
From: David RR Webber (XML)
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:49
AM
To: Hal Lockhart
Cc: Carol Geyer; Paul Knight;
; Robin Cover
Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ
Template
Folks,
I would point people back to the possiblity of using a Blog to resolve all
this.
I've been making extensive use of the free Blogger.com infrastructure - but
there are also open source tools that OASIS could host too.
With some very simple scripting into the HTML side - you can pull the RSS
feeds into Kavi - would take a minute to do.
Blogging for business is a very serious and powerful use of XML - [ that we
should be showcasing?!? ; -) ] - and the new Office 12 has this builtin (there
are some tools for MS Word 2003 right now too).
I'm running projects daily using blog tools - along with news feeds,
dialogues / comments, and email thread tracking. Google probably is going
to start charging me soon - since I have nearly 20 of these things and counting
- up and running!!
On Blogger you have full control of both moderated comments and requiring
human key code / account for comments - so this knocks out spam spiders and
people who are just trawling to post ads / virus / phishing links.
Just a thought...perhaps I should do a WebEx for the OASIS staff to
show-and-tell this...?
DW
--------
Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
From:
"Hal Lockhart" <>
Date: Tue, February 14, 2006 10:37
am
To: "Robin Cover" <>
Cc: "Carol Geyer"
<>, "Paul
Knight"
<>,
<>
Well, I guess we have been lucky in
SAML and XACML. I have not seen a
lot of SPAM and we not only get possible
FAQs, but also sometimes errata
received outside of the Public Review
cycle.
If the SPAM problem is that bad my suggestion may not be
practical. It
is important to mention why the comment policy was changed at
the same
time as the IPR policy. There is a legitimate concern about
an
unidentified party seeding an OASIS Standard with ideas protected
by
patents. This kind of thing has actually happened in other
Standards
orgs.
On XACML, we respond directly to the email address
provided. Often the
question is a good candidate for an FAQ, or a hint that
the document is
not clear enough. In some cases, comments have been
accepted as errata.
Hal
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: Robin Cover [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, February
13, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: Hal Lockhart
> Cc: Carol Geyer; Paul
Knight;
> Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ
Template
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Hal Lockhart wrote:
>
> > Every TC has a public comment list. Historically, something
like
> > half of the comments are actually questions. I suggest the
FAQ
> > template simply point readers to the public comment list for
the TC.
> >
> > Hal
>
>
> For some TCs,
historically, something like half (or more) of the
> "comments" are
actually spam. [1]
>
> Pointing readers from the TC's FAQ
document (template) to the public
> comment list might not be the
optimal solution:
>
> a) spam in the comment list archives may
suggest to a casual
> reader that the comment form facility
is broken, or otherwise
> unsiutable as a mean of getting
an answer to a question
>
> b) some TCs might feel that use of
the TC public comment list
> for Q&A will "screw up our
comment tracking" [2]
>
> c) asking a question on the TC public
comment list involves
> trying to use a communication
channel that has been
> deliberately crippled by a change
in the TC Process [3]
>
> I say "crippled" in "c)" because at one
time, it was permissible
> to use the public comment list for general
public discussion of the
> TC work. That allowed someone to ask a
question, receive an answer,
> request a clarification, receive a
clarified answer, and so forth
> (dialogue, discussion). According to
the memory of some (including
> my memory) that was originally the
intended purpose of of the
> comment list. [4]
>
> Rules
for use of the comment list as a two-way communication
> channel were
changed when the TC Process was altered to read
> "comment facility",
with the stipulation that discussion would
> not be countenanced; see
now TC Process 2.8 TC Visibility"
> "... a means to collect public
comments" ... "The purpose of the
> TC's public comment facility is to
receive comments from the
> public and is not for public
discussion."
>
> Use of the comment form instead of direct email
opened up
> a hole for spammers [5], and the TC Chairs seemed
not
> entirely happy with the change [6].
>
> Irrespective
of the spam problem, which may be fixed by
> reverting back to email:
Questions are clearly different than
> comments in terms of human
communication process.
>
> Within OASIS Staff, I am now trying to
create consensus around the
> position that OASIS should support
archived, two-way communication
> (discussion, dialogue) between the TCs
and the public. Some
> TCs use the *-dev lists for common
questions; others feel
> that the *-dev lists should be reserved for
technical details
> of implementation, not for garden-variety questions
from
> interested members of the public who think of themselves
as
> possible users, not as "developers".
>
> Robin
Cover
>
> -----------
>
> [1] spammed lists
(examples):
>
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200602/maillist.html
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-enotary-
>
comment/200601/maillist.html
>
> [2] Jon Bosak, "Misuse of
ubl-comment list
>
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200410/msg00004.html
>
> [3] Whereas originally, according to some versions of history,
the
> TC comment list was *specifically* designed as a mechanism to
support
> two-way dialogue and discussion [4], the TC Process change
was
> designed to prevent discussion
>
> [4]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00026.html
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00027.html
>
> Jon Bosak: "Actually, the intent of the comment lists *was* to
provide
> a forum for public discussion. It's a feature of the
OASIS process
that
> I've pointed to with pride in presentations to
thousands of people
> over the last couple of years. Guess I'll
have to stop doing
> that. -- Jon
>
> Contrast Karl
Best:
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200206/msg00003.html
>
> "This is supposed to be a one-way pipe to get public comments into
the
TC.
> Admittedly some TCs have stretched this a bit to make them
discussion
> lists, which I haven't fought too much against, but the
original (and
> true)
> purpose is comments"
>
> [5]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200312/msg00009.html
>
> Norm
> "I see. Unfortunately, you've also opened a
hole into which spammers
> can throw things[1]. And there are
plenty of spamming spiders out
> there smart enough to do
so."
>
> [6] Comments about the comment form
>
> **
Lauren Wood
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00011.html
>
> ** Drummond Reed
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00012.html
>
> ** Rich Thompson
>
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00013.html
>
> ** Heather Kreger
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00022.html
>
> "What's the purpose of excluding any public discussion for
TC's?
> Having a public an TC private list is fairly common practice
in
> other organizations I've been involved in (W3C, JCP) and it
was
> appreciated...
>
> ** Rich Thompson
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00023.html
>
> ** Drummond Reed
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00024.html
>
> "Dropping active public comment lists appears to be a step
>
down in openness. That's generally not a good thing. Are there
>
particular reasons driving the change?"
>
> ** Ram Kumar
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00027.html
>
> "I 100% agree with Jon. It *was* indeed a great tool for
public
> discusson. I always advised the public whoever I came
across..."
>
> ** Karl Best
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00028.html
>
> ** Robert Philpott
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00030.html
>
> "I do worry a bit about not being able to ask follow-up
questions
> without engaging in private email exchanges that should
probably
> be kept public."
>
> ** Rex Brooks
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00067.html
>
> ... I have to say that I
> find the current policy to have, in
effect, killed the public comment
> lists, to the detriment of the TCs
and OASIS at large at a time when
> many of us are trying our best to
improve the stature of OASIS in the
> arena of standards bodies. This is
a shame,...
>
> ===
>
>
> >
> >
> -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Carol Geyer
[mailto:]
> > > Sent: Friday, February
10, 2006 2:50 PM
> > > To: 'Paul Knight';
> > > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ
Template
> > >
> > > Good point, Paul.
> >
>
> > > Many Committees, such as the OASIS Security Services
TC
> > (http://www.oasis-
> > >
open.org/committees/security/faq.php), include a statement
> > >
such as "If you have a question that is not answered here, or
if
you
> > have
> > > questions or comments on any of
the answers provided, feel
> > > free to contact the editor
<link to an email address of a TC
member
> > who
> >
> has taken on the responsibility for maintaining the FAQ>."
>
> >
> > >
> > > If anyone has other ideas for
encouraging reader input to FAQs,
please
> > let
> > >
me know.
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:
Paul Knight [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Friday,
February 10, 2006 11:37 AM
> > > To: Carol Geyer;
> > > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ
Template
> > >
> > > Hi Carol,
> >
>
> > > Is there any way for FAQ readers to actually ASK a
Question?
(other
> > than
> > > the mailing list?)
One great frustration with most FAQs is
> > > that they
don't answer the questions people really want to ask,
> >
because
> > > there is actually no clear way to A a Q.
>
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Paul Knight
>
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> From: Carol Geyer [mailto:]
> > >
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:54 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: [chairs] TC FAQ
Template
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
OASIS Committee Chairs:
> > > > Each OASIS TC is provided with
an FAQ page, linked from the
upper
> > > > right column of
the TC's public homepage. This FAQ is a very
> > important
>
> > > resource for helping prospective members, press, analysts,
and
OASIS
> > > > staff better understand your work.
>
> > >
> > > > The OASIS Technical Advisory Board has
compiled a list of
generic
> > > > questions that provide a
basis for all TC FAQs. This is a great
way
> > to
> >
> > get started writing your FAQ, but naturally, you are free to
add
> > > > questions specific to your work. Also, keep in mind
that edits
to
> > > > posted FAQ can be made at any
time.
> > > >
> > > > Please take a moment to
review your TC's FAQ page. Send new text
or
> > > > edits to
me, and we'll get them posted as soon as possible.
> > >
>
> > > > Again, *all* OASIS Committees should provide
information on
their
> > FAQ
> > > > pages. It is
particularly crucial for TC's preparing to submit
work
> > >
> for approval. Press releases announcing new OASIS Standards must
>
> > > reference an updated FAQ.
> > > >
> >
> > TAB Recommended Questions:
> > > >
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/download.php/
> >
> 11675/tab-generic-faq-approved.txt
> > >
> >
>
> > > Many thanks,
> > > Carol
> >
>
> > >
> > >
______________________________
> > > Carol Geyer
> > >
Director of Communications
> > > OASIS
> > > Voice:
+1.978.667.5115 x209
> > >
> > > OASIS Symposium: The
Meaning of Interoperability
> > > 9-12 May, San Francisco
>
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium_2006/
> >
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
