legalxml-sc — archive

[System]

 MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

















legalxml-sc message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]








Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Let's Take Up These Questions at our Next Meeti	ng




From: Daniel Greenwood <dang@mit.edu>
To: legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org,"Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:37:15 -0400






Don (and fellow team members),

1. Timing:

Can you please tell me when the next OASIS Board Meeting is scheduled
and the deadline for getting the members final LegalXML Rules of
Procedure and related policy documents for review prior to that
meeting?  I'm especially interested to learn if the deadline is before
or after our next scheduled LegalXML Steering Committee meeting on
August 21 from 5-6 PM.  I agree with you (Don) that we should not
force a longer delay than the next OASIS Board Meeting and would be
open to doing our business via structured e-mail to meet that deadline
if necessary.  However, if it is possible to collect our outstanding
business and deal with it during a meeting, then that is far
preferable.  Either way, it is imperative that we get an accurate
statement of our IP policy to the Board for approval along with our
other governance and procedural documents.

2. Media

I am getting the impression that you (Don) and Jim both prefer the use
of e-mail for official business rather than "live" meetings.  I would
like to propose a way to meet you both "half-way" - sort of.  What I
find so very objectionable is not the medium of e-mail or web or
anything electronic (actually, I love that media very dearly).
Rather, I can't tolerate the possibility that any given e-mail from
LegalXML-SC could be urgent at any given time.  That elevates this
post to a position far in excess of what is reasonable, given the task
and role of the Steering Committee.  Even people on the Board of
fortune 500 companies are not typically on that sort of tight leash
(other than members of certain operationally oriented Board
committees).  Combine this potential urgency with the proclivity of
our current members (and lawyers generally) to make absolutely
everything into an official issue, and you have a good reason to put
limits on the time and manner of decision making.  But that does not
necessarily have to mean decision making at "live" synchronous
meetings.  I simply suggested that because it is the easiest and more
time-tested method of handling this business need.

Another approach would be to have a combination of processes for
organizing and limiting the time and manner of official decisions via
electronic channels, e.g.: we have a time-limited period for e-mail or
web official meeting business (not more than say 2-4 days in length
and lasting no more than once per month) and an unambiguous method for
discerning an official vote and debate from other informational
business (i.e., in the case of e-mail: a particular header, like
"Official-Vote-RoP" or other appropriate disambiguation on a
webboard).  This would allow us to do official business via electronic
methods, but would avoid the potentially endless loops of debate on
old and new ideas, and inability to quickly ascertain what matters are
official verses ponderous.

3. Reason for Assuring the OASIS Board Approves our Current IP
Language

I don't wish to be obstructionist and I support getting our RoP
approved by the OASIS Board ASAP.  However, we also need to be sure
that the Board approves our current (slightly changes) IP Policy at
the same time.  Currently, the RoP simply indicates that LegalXML TCs
will follow OASIS IP - and I believe that phrase can be reasonably
interpreted to mean that a LegalXML TC need not follow the prior
agreed language.  That is not good, given the evident forces on
throughout the standards setting arena who stand against open
standards and who apparently have no qualms using technical, legal,
political and coercive methods to further the agenda of proprietary
rights.  Creating ambiguity with respect to our IP after having fought
so hard to make it minimally acceptable is not a good idea and the
oversight is worth correcting.  Therefore, we must either send to the
Board a stand alone IP Policy document to consider along with the RoP
or we should amend the RoP to reflect our required language.

4. Bottom-line:

If there is time to have a live meeting before the next OASIS Board
meeting to hammer out our official business, I think we should do
that.  If not, then using e-mail will just have to do.  To my
knowledge, we don't need to have conference call facilities until
mid-September (for the next scheduled TC Meetings) and we need to sign
up with the service by Labor Day to get the discount negotiated by
Messing - so handling this issue at our next meeting should be just
fine.  Whether we use live or pre-meeting e-mail to figure out our RoP
issue, we need to get our IP language approved with the OASIS Board at
the same time as our RoP (in same or other document) to avoid creating
a reasonable ambiguity as to whether LegalXML TCs need to have our
language or just any language that complies with the OASIS broad IP
requirements.  Finally, it is totally fine by me if we do all official
business via electronic means - so long as the time for official
business is very limited and it is clear what is official versus
unofficial or FYI content.

Cheers,
 - Dan

==============================================
|  Daniel J. Greenwood, Esq.
|  Director, E-Commerce Architecture Program
|  MIT School of Architecture and Planning
|  77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 7-231
|  Cambridge, MA 02139
|
|  http://ecitizen.mit.edu
|  or http://www.civics.com
|  dang@mit.edu
==============================================