Hi David,
Yes, so I can see that you are in favor of
retaining the current system, while I would see some benefit in change. Good
example of one of those discussions I guess!
Eric
+1 781 902 8366
fax: +1 781 902 8009
blog: http://blogs.iona.com/newcomer
Making Software Work
Together (TM)
From: David RR Webber
(XML) [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006
9:53 AM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Cc:
Subject: RE:
[oasis-member-discuss] FW: Possible change to TC voting rules - input requested
Eric,
Thanks for the further details. Clearly you are more in favour of
short cryptic one-liners! ; -)
I've learned from long experience that in committee work - you have to
be able to back things up with more in-depth analysis to gain credibility and
also so that peer review of exactly what is intended is worked out. Often
- English being the inprecise tool that it is - two people can appear to be
saying the same thing - but in fact they are quite different in significant details.
I'm not sure there are any short cuts here - it is what it is.
You cannot substitute procedural devices for real world experience with actual
XML and systems across a BROAD community of interest. Most especially -
when no dialogue occurs and specifications are too rapidly moved thru the
process - this almost always results in sub-standard technology outcomes -
where the substance is too shallow - and lacks breadth.
So I say - there is enough checks and balances - if companies are
deliberately stacking the process - and stiffling the technical innovation
within their own team - this fools noone - (except the paid marketing PR
machine!) - and actually hurts them technically - if their aim is to foster
broad adoption. A quick read through the specification by those
technically astute will quickly discern what is really going on - and the lack
of support for the broad use model...
There's an old saying - give people enough rope to hang themselves
with!
DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] FW: Possible change to TC voting
rules - input requested
From: "Newcomer, Eric" <>
Date: Sun, October 29, 2006 9:40 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <>
Cc: <>
Hi David,
I think I was saying what you thought I was saying, which is that
it would be an improvement to try to get companies to come up with company
positions on committee issues. That could be done without preventing the
pro and con arguments from being presented, but it would help by cutting down
on the public resolution of what are by definition internal debates. In
the end companies can’t really advocate for conflicting positions on TC
issues. I mean I guess they could but that would most of the time show
that they don’t have a clear position and that would be another reason it
would help to cut down on that kind of thing.
I sometimes see companies investing effort in committees to ensure
they have as many representatives attend a TC as another company, or to
potentially balance or stack a particular vote, and that doesn’t seem
very positive to me. Also if we are going to see companies invest more in
sending more people to committees for the purpose of raising issues and
propagating debates, that would seem to slow things down more than speed them
up.
I am not talking about restricting attendance just that I would see
it helpful to restrict voting.
A lot of your questions seems to presuppose the answer –
which is that you prefer things to remain as they are. That’s fine
but I am just saying things don’t have to stay as they are and could be
improved.
Eric
+1 781 902 8366
fax: +1 781 902 8009
blog: http://blogs.iona.com/newcomer
Making Software Work Together (TM)
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006
8:35 AM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Cc:
Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss]
FW: Possible change to TC voting rules - input requested
Eric,
I'm not completely
following what you are saying here? Why should we be eliminating
committee debate?
Having just one
company - one vote - is likely to mean that companies invest LESS effort in
committees - and surely that is a bad thing? Also bad is the notion
that company staff cannot freely work out differences in the TC process - or
participate openly - for me that is the essense of what OASIS is - not fettered
by company mandates - but open peer review.
I'd hate to see
the situation where we are institutionalizing companies working behind closed
doors to determine their own position(s) and then bringing that to the
TC. Much better that the TC foster open debate.
OASIS is supposed
to be a public process that maximizes participation - how is what
you are saying in alignment with that?
Thanks, DW
-------- Original
Message --------
Subject: [oasis-member-discuss] FW: Possible change to TC voting rules
- input requested
From: "Newcomer, Eric" <>
Date: Fri, October 27, 2006 3:53 pm
To: <>
I think a one company one vote rule would be an improvement. It would
help eliminate some amount of committee debate (especially among
representatives of the same company) and help streamline votes.
Eric
+1 781 902 8366
fax: +1 781 902 8009
blog: http://blogs.iona.com/newcomer
Making Software Work Together (TM)
-----Original Message-----
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:57 PM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Subject: Possible change to TC voting rules - input requested
Dear IONA
Technologies* Primary Contact
Please look at the following message about a possible change to TC
voting rules:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oasis-member-discuss/
email/archives/200610/msg00000.html
and if you are so inclined please respond as requested to oasis-
thanks,
jeff
--
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
