>* Mary Nishikawa
>|
>| I could handle heading Geolang if it were a subcommittee as opposed
>| to a full-blown committee.
*Lars Marius Garshol
>Mary, how do you think this would make it possible for you to handle?
>I don't think it would be any less work...
*Mary
If you look at the activity of GeoLang from the website, that would be
true. There are no minutes for 2003 and the files that we have there are
the ones I uploaded in April and these were mostly of work done last year.
There is not much list activity either. The main, but yet important
activity is your updates to the PSI sets, but this is not really discussed
or reported on. We had a meeting in London, but what happened to the
minutes? No, this is not much work :)
Now, if you take a look at XMLvoc, it looks the same. No minutes for 2003,
Holger recommended Patrick to take over chairing the committee in the mail
list, and even that was not changed on the site. We still need to
officially elect a chair for XMLvoc, or maybe we did it in London, but
there are not minutes, well... we did have some discussion on the mail list
after the meeting about definitions, but after that...
If we were running monthly meetings with agendas and minutes, the
differences would be visible, but we are now running OASIS meetings similar
to how we do ISO meetings -- Collect feedback between the 3 yearly meetings
over email, and submit documents to the committee before we meet F2F. The
chair is pretty much operating as a standards editor in ISO. This is not
exactly the way OASIS committees should operate, I think, but this is how
our committee evolved out of habit maybe. For these committees, I think it
is OK though. But we need to have more communication, have minutes and at
least we should keep the sites up to date.
A committee chair as opposed to a leader of a subcommittee is quite
different and the chair for published subjects had more work to do than
GeoLang or XMLvoc. The committee chair is planning all of the agendas,
meetings, administrative stuff, and the subcommittee leader would provide
feedback to the chair if we were to run active committees that is.
So these committees in effect are really being run as subcommittees now.
We can continue in this mode, but it will not work for the Published
Subjects committee.
There are also no minutes for Published subjects after February 6, 2003. No
London minutes either and no meetings after May, IRC or otherwise.
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tm-pubsubj/meetings/index.htm
We had the most activity in 2002. Once we stopped the conference calls, the
activity seems to slack off, but there may be other reasons too.
>*Mary
>| It would be good to have an OWL PSI Subcommittee, for example
*Lars Marius Garshol
>That's not a bad idea, but we could do a separate TC, too.
I really would not like to start a separate TC for this.
> Or we could
>do a new umbrella TC, but I think we want to finish up the three pieces
>of work we are currently embarked on before taking up new ones.
Agreed. This seems to sway me to keep the GeoLang and XMLVoc as they are
for now, but with more visible activity. I still think that we need to work
on how Published Subjects is going to be run, and it should *not* be run as
these two committees are now.
>Mary, Patrick and I argued against concalls, but you seem to have
>ignored that. Could you explain why you prefer concalls?
In my experience, I have not gotten anything done completely with a
committee without some verbal contact. As you can imagine, I should be the
one least wanting conference calls since I already have too many
work-related ones already. If you look at our committee record, it seems to
more us forward. We need a meeting soon, but we need a complete
agenda beforehand. We can do this on IRC, but these are not *official*
OASIS meetings. We need to check on this or request changing this. I will
not be at the F2F so a call once in a while would be necessary to maintain
membership status, and also for others not attending the F2F. For you, it
is not necessary because you will attend the F2F meetings.
The best of both worlds would be the have a conference call at the time of
the F2F, and in that case you would not be on the line :) however, this is
very expensive to do from the hotel conference room. Any suggestions or
volunteers for sponsorship would be appreciated.
> | We need to have more detailed agendas and ToDo lists, I agree with
>| Patrick there. Then people can sign up for tasks.
>
>We are all in agreement on this, it seems, which is good.
Another option is to leave the official charter as is, but have a document
which outlines the deliverables we have agreed on with new dates and a
meeting schedule with projected milestones. Since I cannot guarantee being
at the F2F meetings, I did not nominate myself for chair. I propose to
co-chair with Patrick and let him handle the F2F meetings, etc. and I would
handle the other meetings/agendas, minutes. Then I think we can move forward.
I still in principle, agree with Steve's points and would really rather
have a new charter, etc. I still think that we can request to change the
name of the committee without too much effort. I recall this being done for
one of the web services committees. We can explain that we are
changing the name be cause we need to emphasize that the published
subjects we are creating are not exclusive to topic maps. I will check with
Scott McGrath. This will give us some more exposure and maybe we can get
some new members.
Cheers,
Mary
