MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: EM-TC EDXL-DE CD Process - Formal Objection
Elysa - I can only say that the process has been suboptimal.
However, that can simply be viewed (positively) as a challenge to us
all.
Renato
On 17 Aug 2005, at 06:03, Elysa Jones wrote:
> Dear Renato,
>
> First, let me apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I wont
> make excuses.
>
> Now to the subject. I appreciate the comments and issues that you
> have brought up over the time I have been EM-TC Chair and see you
> as an important member and contributor of our group. The
> information model that you drafted is also appreciated and has
> aided in various discussions over the past eight weeks. While your
> revised format for the data dictionary won general approval among
> the TC, the majority of the group didn't seem to embrace the object
> model you offered. It may be that the members are just too used to
> the DOM approach or that the information model gives the impression
> that we are further down the road than we are. It must be
> understood too that the DOM we started with for the current work
> was a consensus approved model originating from the New Orleans
> face to face.
>
> It is true that Michelle and Sylivia started putting the
> specification together reviewing all e-mails and documents in the
> TC folder at my direction during a TC call for which there was not
> a quorum. It is not my understanding that a TC vote was required
> to get this effort started. It was basically just putting what had
> already been done into the OASIS format, get a working schema and
> highlight the issues left to be addressed. I don't mean to imply
> that this is not a very major task but just that it did not give
> this group or any other license to make changes to what was already
> agreed.
>
> We also have been late in getting the meeting notes posted. Now
> that we have Julia as our secretary, this should go smoother. We
> also have not documented all discussion in the meeting notes but
> have tried to focus on the highlights and any decisions made when
> there is a quorum. Understanding that you, unfortunately, are not
> able to participate in our calls due to the time difference, we
> will try to put more details in the notes AND get them posted sooner.
>
> As you know we had a call today - and the meeting notes will be out
> before tomorrow - EDT. We spent quite a bit of time discussing the
> issues you raise and the information model. A quorum was present
> for our call today and the following was discussed:
>
> 1) Does the current EDXL DE draft properly capture the discussion
> to date? It was the consensus of the group that we have captured
> these discussions.
> 2) Have Dr. Iannella's comments and issues been reviewed and
> addressed? Several members (specifically Rex, Tom, Gary, David,
> Michelle and Sylvia) expressed that they reviewed the comments and
> felt like each had been addressed.
> 3) Do we need to have both a DOM and an information model in our
> documents going forward? Carl had suggested that both were
> included in OGC specifications. Gary specifically likes the format
> but doesn't see putting it in the specification as such. The group
> agreed that the best place would be the "cook book" that Patti is
> working on for such a data model.
> 4) How are we going to manage the issues and versions in this fast-
> paced week of trying to finish up this spec? Michelle started an
> issues list via the list. She will add to it the results of todays
> discussion and send it to Julia for posting with the minutes as
> well as sending it directly to the list. Art will begin the formal
> issues list with the feed from Michelle. We are asking anyone at
> this point when an issue is raised to please also offer a proposed
> solution for discussion and any ramifications they envision. The
> document in its current form will be numbered EDXL/DE 0.1. Each
> time we make changes, this number will roll until we get to the 1.0
> committee draft.
>
> I hope this response addresses your concerns. I have followed the
> TC process guidelines as I understand them trying at every turn to
> be sure all members are heard and that we go forward with a
> consensus of the group. I continue to welcome your comments and be
> sure they are heard. Thank you for your efforts.
>
> Regards,
> Elysa Jones, Chair
> OASIS EM-TC
> Engineering Program Manager
> Warning Systems, Inc.
> 256-880-8702 x102
>
> At 12:57 AM 8/16/2005, Renato Iannella wrote:
>
>
>
>> Elysa, I did not wish to get to this point, but I don't seem to have
>> much choice now given the
>> speed at which this is moving.
>>
>> I would like to formally register my objection to the current CD
>> process.
>>
>> Firstly, my requests for clarifications on the process, in particular
>> why the "Data Model" [1] (dated 2 May 2005)
>> version of the draft was used instead of the latter "Information
>> Model" draft [2][3] (dated 20 June 2005) have
>> all gone unanswered [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].
>>
>> Second, the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2005 [10] in which
>> it said:
>>
>> "A task force of three (Michelle, Sylvia and Lee) are going to
>> take the
>> work of the DE to date and compile it into the OASIS format
>> template"
>>
>> Obviously DID NOT include all of the "work of the DE to date" and has
>> missed significant discussion and
>> outcomes since the 2 May 2005 draft.
>>
>> Third, the minutes [10] also clearly state:
>>
>> "A quorum was not in attendance"
>>
>> Hence, according to the OASIS TC Process [11]:
>>
>> "Without a quorum present discussions may take place but no
>> business may be conducted"
>>
>>
>> Again, I regret that we have reached this situation, and request that
>> these outstanding and
>> serious issues be addressed prior to any new work on the current CD
>> process continues.
>>
>>
>> Cheers... Renato Iannella
>> National ICT Australia (NICTA)
>>
>>
>> [1] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200505/msg00015.html>
>> [2] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200506/msg00160.html>
>> [3] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200506/msg00196.html>
>> [4] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200508/msg00011.html>
>> [5] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200508/msg00013.html>
>> [6] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200508/msg00026.html>
>> [7] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200508/msg00048.html>
>> [8] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200508/msg00059.html>
>> [9] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/email/
>> archives/200508/msg00060.html>
>> [10] <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/
>> email/ archives/200507/msg00047.html>
>> [11] <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.10>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>> This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may
>> contain legally
>> privileged information or copyright material. You should not read,
>> copy,
>> use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an
>> intended
>> recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then
>> delete both
>> messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer
>> virus,
>> data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or
>> unauthorised
>> amendment. This notice should not be removed.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Cheers... Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]