We are not in much of a disagreement.
I want to place the focus on supporting technical committees by member
sections. That's why I believe it needs to be there and first in the list.
Your proposal, along the lines of a C. or D. within the list is a very
proper use of a member section and especially a member section steering
committee. The definition of the initial portfolio of technical committees
in their scope often is crucial to the success of such an effort. I did not
mean at all to preclude that is an option. I just want to place it in the
correct context.
Regards,
Don
Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781
-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:18 AM
To: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
Cc: 'patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org'; legalxml-sc@lists.oasis-open.org;
board-ms-policy@lists.oasis-open.org; Scott McGrath; peter Roden;
john@greacen.net
Subject: Re: [legalxml-sc] Bergeron comments ... MS killed if no TC?
Importance: High
Hello all. I haven't been involved in the drafting of the
proposed MS Policy, but I do read the threads and LegalXML StC
list. It's no surprise that Don, a successful long-time LegalXML
leader, is giving us his time & thought again to assist our process
improvements. Still, on one point I think I respectfully disagree
with him and the other comments in this thread. Binding each MS
to too-tight an orbit around an existing TC may quash other worthy
activities.
All specifications at OASIS must be created in TCs. But
I'm not sure that means that all MS always will have, or need,
current TCs. Some communities of interest may wish to
persist -- creating focused standards projects from time to time
when called for, but also continuing their conversation before and
after such projects. Some such communities seem to take a
long exploratory phase ... some MSs might be better served by being
slower to the trigger.
Over the past few years, our rules increasingly impose
project-based, deadline- and deliverable-oriented limits &
sunsetting on TCs. Tighter charters put more limits on a
member's commitments to license and cooperate. That may be
attractive to some projects and communities. But we've had different
feedback from others. User-focused and vertical groups often
have a more open-ended and expansive view of standards support
activities. We should give that approach as much opportunity to
flourish as we do the narrower, more centrally-controlled paradigm.
I've copied John Greacen, another longtime leader in LegalXML, here,
as this reminded me of comments he submitted for LegalXML two years
ago. [1] A copy of John's letter is attached here. If we've already
chased broad exploratory work that precedes IPR commitment *out* of
the TCs, where do we want it to be housed? Must it be driven
away from OASIS? I do not think we should refuse an interest
community that wants to organize as a section, if their
standardization plans have not yet gelled into a concrete project.
(In fact, maybe we should *reward* them for not jumping off prematurely
with an undercooked plan.) Similarly, on the after-TC side, MS
purposes should not be so bound to TC lifecycle that one or two
members can easily force an MS to close, based on TC project
milestones,
even if the MS community in question wishes to continue its
conversation.
If OASIS members want to discuss and support standards before and
after TC work, as well as during it, then a section is a better
vehicle than a TC for doing so. Let's not accidentally make that
impossible. Thanks & regards Jamie
~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
~ jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
[1] LegalXML 2004 comments on precipitous closures:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tcproc-member-review/200411/msg00008.ht
ml
> I agree with your replies. However, I strongly urge you to move option
> C. to be option A. Within that section. The reason for this is that any
> member section alone does nothing. It's preeminent purpose is to
> support technical committees. If it does not do this then your other
> points do not matter.
> Regards, *Don*
>
>> Don,
>> Thank you for your comments. I am providing answers to your questions
>> in-line below.
>> Patrick Gannon
>>
>>> *From:* Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
>>> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2007 8:45 AM
>>>
>>> Here are my comments on the new Member Section policy prepared for
>>> the Board of Directors. I am preparing these comments as an
>>> individual Member Section member and as former member and initial
>>> chair of the Member Section Steering Committee. I do not speak for
>>> the Member Section Steering Committee. * * *
>>> * * *
>>> List item beginning at line 59 -- I kind of thing we've
>>> missed a major point. What is the purpose of the Member
>>> Sections? The purpose of Member Sections used to support the
>>> work of technical committees. These committees may exist or
>>> not exist at a certain point in time, but, the bottom line
>>> goal is to support the technical committee or committees
>>> individually or as a group. * * * I think the concept of
>>> support must be first and foremost and in clear language.
>>>
>>>