Paul,
With all due respect: there are *already* several standards adopted that are “a different kind of work”.
It would have been a fool’s errand on the part of the TC to go through the whole process only to realize on the last home stretch, “oops, this isn’t right!”.
The TGF TC looked to precedence to guide it’s work.
The fact is that there are
no requirements for something to be a Standard that are different from something to be considered as a Committee Specification. The relevant provisions of 2(18)(8)(a) apply equally to Public Review, Committee Specification, and Standard.
That may well be an issue: I have always and consistently argued
that there ought to be a difference between approving something as a Committee Specification and a Standard – but the only difference we have today is a member-wide ballot on a proposed Standard. On that one point, Patrick is right.
However, I do not believe that it is “bonne guerre” to use the last couple of days of a two week ballot as a whipping boy for a perceived shortcoming in the
overall process. If Patrick felt passionately about this, he would have consistently argued the case at the Public Review stage of this, and every other “offending” draft spec. – he has not; Or in his capacity as a member of the Technical Advisory Board –
which he has not done; or in his capacity as a Liaison from JTC 1/SC34. He has stated very clearly that he has full authority in the position but has only chosen to exercise it in a last minute campaign against a single ballot rather than address the systemic
issue he claims to be supporting.
Thankfully, this incident has generated plenty of useful and thoughtful contributions to the debate that we are due to have at the next Board meeting – a debate
that I asked for before and independently of the current ballot.
Many thanks for your, and many other, helpful comments and constructive responses.
Best regards,
Peter
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 April, 2013 08:38
To: Chet Ensign
Cc: Peter F Brown; Patrick Durusau;
Subject: Re: [chairs] TGF Minutes Report
Chet
Thanks very much for your clearly thought through note. I think that the TC process as written is not 100% clear. My personal reading of the TC process clearly differs from yours. I'm unwilling to say that mine
is right and yours is wrong: I think there are different goals and there is clearly a goal here by the TGF TC to attempt to standardize a different kind of work than has previously been in OASIS. I can see why you support that because there is clearly excellent
work that has gone into this document and I really applaud what the TC has done in moving forward this area.
However, my own personal view is that the TC process should be modified if OASIS wishes to support this kind of work. I think trying to approve it as a standard given the current TC process is stretching the process and one concern is that the stretch points
might well be used by future TCs that ARE interoperable standards.
Paul
On 24 April 2013 14:39, Chet Ensign <> wrote:
Good morning Paul (and chairs),
Well, good morning here in the US east coast anyway. Thanks for your note - it has triggered some thoughts:
- "or the TC process needs to be modified to support this kind of work product" - I plan to raise this idea with the Board's process committee. I'm thrilled that work like this and PMRM and ID-Cloud and other non-code
projects are at OASIS. We do need to consider modifications to make the fit better. Not sure what those might be yet - I'll be looking at practices in other organizations to see what other models are out there.
- "three fo the five statements of use do not follow the prescription..." - The wording of SoUs being submitted to TCs was raised with me last month (I think) and since then I have been working with TCs to make
sure that wording is proper. If I went back before that, I would find SoUs in a number of TCs that one way or the other didn't conform to some detail. As a general principal, I don't make it a practice to go back and retroactively change my practice with TCs.
In my judgement, the SoUs for TGF are within the scope of the prevailing practice of the time.
- "reading the TC conformance clauses and the part of the process I quoted, I believe that it has stretched the meaning of those to limits..." - hence
again the need to review the TC Process to look for opportunities for improvement. Let me also say that the TGF TC has worked patiently and persistently with me to conform to anything I asked of them. Their work complies with the requirements of the TC Process
to my satisfaction.
I really want to see OASIS be a good home for work like this. It is needed. I really like the way David Webber phrased it in another message: "OASIS
needs tools beyond middleware XML that inform and empower organizations to build better processes for developing solutions. The marketplace is looking to standards organizations to provide this guidance." I think we can be a great platform for work like that
and this debate has really helped to elevate the issues that we need to consider so that we can make the fit work better.
Again Paul, thanks for your note. It has helped me crystalize my thinking.
Best,
/chet
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Paul Fremantle <> wrote:
Peter
I understand the challenges that you went through and they lead me to question whether:
* either, the particular work product was not ideal for OASIS,
* or the OASIS TC process needs to be modified to support this kind of work product.
Certainly reading the TC conformance clauses and the part of the process I quoted, I believe that it has stretched the meaning of those to limits which I don't think were intended when the process was written. For
example, I note that three of the five statements of use do not follow the prescription of "stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations.".
Paul
On 24 April 2013 02:22, Peter F Brown <> wrote:
Paul,
It should be no surprise. CS Transform handed over their original work to the TC as a formal “Contribution” that served to bootstrap the whole endeavor. Several people with whom
they worked wanted to be parties to the work’s further development in OASIS. I think that it is quite common for new TC’s who bring new members to OASIS to be involved with a key sponsor of the work.
The important thing is that any OASIS member can join any TC – and many did, like myself, who had no prior knowledge of or affiliation with CS Transform. I found the work challenging
in terms of the OASIS process – which is historically designed to work with technical and directly implementable specifications (and which possibly is at the origin of some of Patrick’s concerns – but we ensured that the process was respected in every detail.
The proposal may not be to everyone’s liking but to claim as Patrick does that we have somehow “broken the rules” is simply not true.
Thanks for taking a detailed look at the work and I hope that you can support it
Best regards,
Peter
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 April, 2013 17:53
To: Patrick Durusau
Cc:
Subject: Re: [chairs] TGF Minutes Report
One thing that I find interesting is in relation to this aspect of the TC process.
The TC process states:
""Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented
that specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses specified in Section
2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations."
With regard to the five statements of use:
One of the SOU's comes from CS Transform (whose CEO is one of the editors).
Two more come from clients of CS Transform.
Two are not linked (as far as I know) to CS Transform.
In addition the Chair is a retired employee of CS Transform.
If this was an interoperability standard with a requirement for multiple independent implementations I would be questioning the independence of at least 3 of the 5 statements of use. But its not.
Paul
On 24 April 2013 00:23, Patrick Durusau <> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Greetings!
I did promise to review the TGF minutes for discussion of conformance.
As part of that review, note that file: TCminutes2013_02_21.rtf has
the correct date but the document has the header: "Meeting 21 March
2013" but refers to the minutes of 17th of January for approval. So
the file name is correct, but the heading in the file is wrong.
The TGF TC did discuss conformance clauses, but in 2011. Look at
IssuesList-2011-12-14.xlsx to find the notes.
While the wording of the conformance clauses is discussed, the issues
that I raised of allowing *any* model were not.
For the various posts following my initial one, I would note that no
one had addressed the merits of my objection.
As several of the posts have made clear, the timing of these
objections is not an issue. The TC would have dismissed them and we
would be exactly where we are today.
Only the vote of OASIS members controls the quality of OASIS standards.
Are you an "any model" OASIS member?
If not, vote no.
Hope everyone is having a great day!
Patrick
- --
Patrick Durusau
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRdxfqAAoJEBerZNWIP55s6KgIAKkKqRiimhgfqOSav76eGr1d
IDBrkP6dfp33YoMNMfPCTgd6+4QyT67Ai5f+6Y27y0wkcSWWKYxiLFP0LgDT2Hn4
8lEUuMCzq88DdHtZLvIp878yLPKVJH9whLF+DIYhUIMQm0EAU1+i44jmA/wlFsdA
iOi5Rl798z2CKEI9LD0LsRcCyVgcIwLZp+/3B+Srv6rA/RirHAyPYGc/YYpM62VS
dK5QyPM8jojQlMIHRrVT31Kxsb4n9yMfYs0CLvnnyVJvifn2Ng+kDr5PRMi4fFGU
WOpQ+Ou11TSSRghJ7XVrXxIFEqjunV7E/RT/sgShOrb2nX4YfTOCJwvk6HYBCNw=
=DN3Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Paul Fremantle
CTO and Co-Founder, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair, VP, Apache Synapse
UK: +44 207 096 0336
US: +1 646 595 7614
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
twitter.com/pzfreo
wso2.com Lean Enterprise Middleware
Disclaimer: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information and is intended exclusively for the addressee/s. If you are not the intended recipient/s, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please reply
to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received and in addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained in this communication. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely,
secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
--
Paul Fremantle
CTO and Co-Founder, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair, VP, Apache Synapse
UK: +44 207 096 0336
US: +1 646 595 7614
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
twitter.com/pzfreo
wso2.com Lean Enterprise Middleware
Disclaimer: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information and is intended exclusively for the addressee/s. If you are not the intended recipient/s, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please reply
to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received and in addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained in this communication. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely,
secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
--
/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html
TC Administration information and support is available at
http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin
Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen
Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open
--
Paul Fremantle
CTO and Co-Founder, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair, VP, Apache Synapse
UK: +44 207 096 0336
US: +1 646 595 7614
blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org
twitter.com/pzfreo
wso2.com Lean Enterprise Middleware
Disclaimer: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information and is intended exclusively for the addressee/s. If you are not the intended recipient/s, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please reply
to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received and in addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information contained in this communication. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely,
secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.
