Jeff,
One thing I missed mentioning - is that Blogger has a really nice
ability to script a default template for both the site UI look-n-feel
and postings themselves, making it ease for OASIS to have a common
setup and configuration.
Part of that is to provide submitters the choice of how they are
contributing - personal comment, or company formal comment, and if IPR
constraints apply, or none. Right now we're clearly not
capturing any of that.
And I feel Toby's pain factor here - when you do expose that detail -
expect alot of people to react by turning back at the gate and not even
posting on the basis of if-in-doubt-do-nothing. Design is
obviously vital to minimize that touch-and-feel rejection of
excessively burdening legalese is avoided. If simple Q&A
stuff can be encouraged that is a positive outcome.
DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re:
[chairs] TC FAQ Template
From: Jeff Mischkinsky
<>
Date: Tue, February 14, 2006
11:38 am
To: "Considine, Toby (Facilities Technology
Office)"
<>
Cc: "Paul Knight"
<>, "Carol
Geyer"
<>, "Hal Lockhart"
<>,
<>,
"David RR Webber (XML)"
<>, "Robin Cover"
<>
On Feb 14, 2006, at 7:59 AM,
Considine, Toby ((Facilities Technology
Office)) wrote:
>
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.
There is a difference. If
you contribute an idea for which you don't
have the IPR rights,
then YOU have violated the OASIS IPR agreement,
and will have to
bear the consequences. Hopefully this will be in
member's
consciousness and make them think twice before adopting
someone
else's ideas without getting permission.
If someone sends in a
comment via the official comments process then
they are legally
obligated to license that IPR according to the terms
of the IPR
rules in effect, because they first "sign" an agreement
stating
so.
>
> 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.
Don't know if they are
more or less open, but they should have
"cleaner" IPR and licensing
rules associated with them. I'm not sure
how the new rules create
obscurity. (I do agree that they are a bit
more cumbersome in that
you have to use a click through form, rather
than just firing
an email. And you might think twice when the legal
implications of
what your comment commits your company to, but that's
exactly the
intent -- make sure your company will provide licenses to
implementers of OASIS specs if necessary.)
cheers,
jeff
>
> 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/
>> > >
>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>>
> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>
>> > --
--
Jeff Mischkinsky
Director, Web Services Standards
+1(650)506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff
500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9
Oracle
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
