Fwd: [oasis-board-comment] Appeal to OASIS-Appeal-001

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patrick Durusau <>

Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Subject: [oasis-board-comment] Appeal to OASIS-Appeal-001
To: "" <>, 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1

Greetings,

This is an appeal to the OASIS Board of Directors with respect to the

decision taken by TC Admin regarding OASIS-Appeal-001. The background

of this case, with the original appeal to TC Admin, and the ruling by

TC Admin can be found in [1]( and copied  in the appendix for

convenience) and will not be repeated here.

As per TC process [2], since we are appealing the action of the TC

Administrator, a new appeal is being made to the OASIS Board of

Directors. We would like the Board to reverse the decision of the TC

Administrator and require the TOSCA TC to go through a re-chartering

process for the reasons outlined below, and laid out in the original

appeal. The appellants are fully supportive of the new  charter,

though we are concerned that the incorrect process was followed for

its approval.

The TC Administrator correctly identifies the critical issue on appeal:

     The crucial question in this situation is: "Did the changes made

     broaden the TOSCA charter; that is, did they make it possible for the

     TC to undertake work that it could not do under the original

charter?"

But the TC Administrator was not the first person to ask and answer

that question. The representatives of the TC stated at the appeal

hearing that they did not consider the TC charter in need of changing.

However, it came to light that other members of the TC were uncertain

enough about the scope of the TC for the TC to agree to the process of

"clarification" to settle their concerns over scope.

Since the TC undertook this change in the charter to deal with a scope

concern, the TC Administrator erred in deciding that the

"clarification" had no effect on the scope of the TC. Clearly the

"clarification" settled scope concerns in the minds of members of the

TC since the ballot was successful.

However agreeing on less ambiguous words is different from

acknowledging that the IPR scope of a TC may  have  actually been

widened, and we believe that TC Administrator and the TC Chairs have

confused ambiguity with scope, which has resulted in the same language

being inserted contained as both the in and out of scope.

The evidence offered by the TC leadership clearly established the

intent to resolve scope concerns of TC members, not by narrowing, but

by copying text from the out of scope section to the in-scope section.

That they choose to call it a "clarification" doesn't change the

actions of the TC.

We therefore request that the Board reverses the ruling of

OASIS-Appeal-001 and require the TOSCA TC to re-charter  as laid out

in 2.12 of the TC Process [3].

Signed: Martin Chapman (Oracle), Patrick Durusau (Individual).

[1] https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tosca/201306/msg00005.html

(copied in the appendix below)

[2] https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#appeals

[3]

https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#rechartering

Appendix: Copy of Ruling from TC Admin

- ---------------------------

Subject: [OASIS-Appeal-001] Decision

. From: Chet Ensign <>

. To: Martin Chapman <>, Patrick Durusau

<>, , "Paul C

() Lipton" <>, 

. Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:27:22 -0400

________________________________________

Summary:

On 09 April 2013, the TOSCA TC approved a Special Majority Vote to

clarify its charter. On 01 May 2013, I announced the clarified charter

to the membership of OASIS. On 16 May 2013, OASIS members Martin

Chapman, Patrick Durusau and Jacques Durand submitted a written appeal

to TC Administration stating their belief that the changes to the

TOSCA charter expand the charter's scope and requesting that I

invalidate the vote approving the clarification and require the TC to

instead make the change by rechartering [1]. The detailed facts are

laid out in an email to the parties involved and to the

 mailing list on 30 May 2013 [2].

After considering the issues raised in the appeal, the changes to the

charter approved by the TC and the definition of charter clarification

in the OASIS TC Process, I am satisfied that the changes approved by

the TOSCA TC fall within the meaning of charter clarification and that

the TC does not need to recharter. The appeal is denied.

Details of my decision are below. After the discussion, steps are

provided for appealing this decision should any party wish to do so.

1. Details of this decision

1.a The appeal

The appeal raised two issues with the changes made to the charter:

a) "the new charter places an item within the scope of the TC which

the original charter had explicitly declared as out of scope, thus

widening not narrowing the scope of the TC."

b) "The original charter specified that work on standardizing concrete

component types, whether vendor specific or not, would be done in

other, yet to be chartered, Technical Committees. Changing this and

bringing this work into the TOSCA TC widens the scope of the original

TC."

I agree with the appellants that if either of these assertions is

true, then the TC did indeed expand its scope and thus could not

approve the changes as a charter clarification. To determine whether

they are true, we first review the changes made to the charter.

1.b Changes made to the charter

In its Special Majority Vote, the TC voted on changes contained in a

red-lined version of the charter that was linked from the ballot [3].

Those specifically relevant to the appeal are:

a) Item 1. listed in the "Out of Scope" section was changed from:

"1. The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of

concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates.

However, standardization of a basic set of concrete component types,

relationship types and properties is intended to be enabled by this

work, and could begin in parallel with this project, with appropriate

coordination."

to (with <insert>s and <delete>s flagged)

"1. The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of

concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates.

However, standardization of a basic set of <insert>non-vendor specific</>

concrete component types, relationship types and properties<insert>,

which

includes all attributes of the type and all contained elements, </> is

intended to be enabled by this work <delete>, and could begin in parallel

with this project, with appropriate coordination</>.

b) A new item 3. was added to the list of items "specifically in scope":

"3. Standardization of a basic set of non-vendor specific, concrete

component types, relationship types and properties, which includes

all attributes of the type and all contained elements."

1.c The meaning of clarifying a charter

Charter clarification is discussed in section 2.11 of the OASIS TC

Process [4]. It begins by stating:

"A TC may clarify its Charter only for the purpose of removing

ambiguity or for narrowing the scope of the topic defined by

the Charter. The TC may not broaden or otherwise change its

scope of the topic of work."

The crucial question in this situation is: "Did the changes made

broaden the TOSCA charter; that is, did they make it possible for the

TC to undertake work that it could not do under the original charter?"

The first item listed as of out of scope in the original charter was

"The definition of concrete cloud services, i.e. the definition of

concrete component types, relationship types, and topology templates."

That item was then immediately qualified with a second sentence that

read "However, standardization of a basic set of concrete component

types, relationship types and properties is intended to be enabled by

this work.".

The second sentence clearly limited the extent of the work deemed out

of scope. It retained for the TC the right to produce *basic* concrete

component types -- whatever that may mean in practice -- under the

charter. We can all agree that this could have been written much

better than it was. However, the effect of the sentence is quite

clear: *basic* component types were always within scope.

Did the addition of the words "non-vendor specific" and "which

includes all attributes of the type and all contained elements" to the

second sentence expand the scope of the work it permitted? I take them

instead to be an effort to better explain what is meant by a *basic*

component type - as efforts to limit the extent of what the limiting

sentence itself allows. They do not have the effect of expanding the

scope.

Did the addition of the new item to the in-scope list expand the

charter? Given that the words it are identical to the words used in

the "However" sentence, it cannot. It simply addresses the ambiguity

caused by having in-scope work embedded in the out-of-scope section of

the document. Once again, we can all agree that the original language

could have been better, but this does not change the overall meaning

of scope of the charter.

Lastly, did the deletion of the words "and could begin in parallel

with this project, with appropriate coordination" from the end of the

first out-of-scope item change the scope? The appeallants assert that

these words meant that the work on basic component types would be done

"in other, yet to be chartered, Technical Committees." I think this is

a stretch. The sentence does not specify in any way where the work

might be done and does not use the words "other Technical Committee"

or anything like it. A more straightforward reading of that clause is

that it allowed the TOSCA TC to start the work on basic component

types in parallel with work on the specification itself "with

appropriate coordination."

In conclusion, I find that the original charter enabled the TC to work

on "basic component types" because of the language limiting the extent

of the first out-of-scope item. I find that the additional words

inserted into that sentence simply attempt to better describe what is

meant by the word "basic." I find that the repetition of that second

sentence in the in-scope section of the charter simply addresses the

ambiguity of placement in the original charter. Lastly, I find that

the words ". and could begin in parallel with this project." does not

indicate that another TC was anticipated but rather was a procedural

note on when work on a basic type could start.

I find that the TC has simply eliminated ambiguity from their charter.

I affirm the clarification vote and the resulting charter clarification.

2. Procedure for appealing this decision

Appeal of this decision can be made by any party to the OASIS Board of

Directors.

To appeal this decision, send the appeal to

 and copy the TOSCA TC and

. A copy of this decision is

being mailing to the oasis-board-comment mailing list for reference.

Please reference [OASIS-Appeal-001] in the subject line to ensure

continuity of the record across the respective mailing lists.

- --- References

[1] Email: "Appeal to the charter clarification recently made by the

TOSCA TC," 16 May 2013:

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-administration/201305/msg00000.html

[2] Email: "[OASIS-Appeal-001] Background and Facts for the Action

Being Appealed," 30 May 2013:

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-administration/201305/msg00024.html

[3] Red-lined version of the TOSCA charter approved by the TC:

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=48749&wg_abbrev=tosca

[4] TC Process, section 2.11 TC Charter Clarification:

https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process

- ---- end ----

- --

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/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRzJcRAAoJEAudyeI2QFGongsP/3aAPVy265o+lX+lFXejm46N

4gdrKhLMiZ++tg8+4idWLmBkUx59rsjqMbsdr04Sj3GcDPvn7BhfJpjvD2HX+sqk

7kVOAxQK/XwgExd1DbbnoSEDWs7C10rD/exdLVR+qCk0ZFED9IvrSWIeQt9ASU+O

LSRAPQoLE2n+139XSqLsSBrok8DmT3VGip7uTrWGqmmjlz8k7t2/F7QuU9GPGEwl

PGblX0Xl1bdcQYsQk+JJCG9mATDJr/aAmLbNxA4e398rmEgVkwLxjxu4yCtQU+N8

r8RQFsQPcj2DV4vZuaKE7NvY2O9cowIxIiJ6W4mD+kVJO2C/qHp+4T5dZ37WDdXW

d70cRlpgB3517v5k2/ZjUeXsfdaVI+a8U/Z6JgunKjloNhrxTziodu4lpaDcJF5V

kx5nAyyGBMhCaoxaeD7vHxbiUHTQGHK83DXX5527bPuW5loVn4QP/bzcmD7VACPS

1Jpt3B376c5GpDZGgWnWZFfabwkfPEyhuwv28M21bQIHEBJNtaJh5B8gs6lshyXF

OVLjQXV0bng9x4lo1+jRAyIuaHjrsp8hLvNK/5zkcdV5OfWt0pLPtOTfojS6jAZl

jX4dxRMxjQzfEVyDpbax28nWO4rLAMYSdDYQjQ6wkbL3QJ7rmMMy9B+kzI+SrUOU

yAjOGVum5/uyRQRYdOeT

=DZjK

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 

/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