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"
<Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Sun, October 29, 2006 9:40
am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc:
<oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org>
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.
From:
David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
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
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?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[oasis-member-discuss] FW: Possible change to TC voting rules
-
input requested
From: "Newcomer, Eric"
<Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
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:
member_services@oasis-open.org
[mailto:member_services@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 6:57 PM
To: Newcomer,
Eric
Subject: Possible change to TC voting rules - input
requested
Dear
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-
member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
thanks,
jeff
--
Jeff
Mischkinsky
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Web Services
Standards
+1(650)506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff
, M/S 4OP9
Oracle