On 18 Feb 2009, at 12:42, James Bryce Clark wrote:
> But it also was suggested that TC members who are DHS staff or DHS
> contractors are acting improperly, if they favor including the DHS
> material. That's silly. Standards committee members are all
> experts, with biases, which they bring into a TC ... to hammer out
> compromises .. which is what we do in standards work. As long as
> the deliberations are carried out properly and transparently under
> our rules, no-one should be attacked for having an opinion.
>
> It also was suggested that OASIS or its staff has some intent to
> control the TC. That's silly, too. The TC is free to make its own
> choices. Art expressed concern about the contract OASIS made with
> DHS to provide some assistance and information to DHS about the
> spec. OASIS could not have agreed to a contract that asked us to
> influence or assure the technical decisions made by the TC. And we
> didn't. Because we don't have that power.
>
> The contract was not posted to the TC because, for whatever reason,
> the contractor set some rules around how it's disclosed. Which Art
> and everyone is welcome to pursue.
James, in the first para you say "as long as the deliberations are
carried out transparently"....then you say (3rd para) that a Contract
between OASIS and DHS related to "providing assistance" to a DHS about
an EMTC spec cannot be made available to the TC for "whatever reason".
Could you explain the apparent contradiction?
Cheers... Renato Iannella
NICTA
