Hi all,
While various philosophical and personal opinions on IPR modes can be
entertainingly and/or passionately promoted, the OASIS process is pretty
clear. OASIS members can either join or not join a proposed TC, and can
make that decision based on the subject matter, the IPR mode, or any
other factor.
In this case, several of the TC proposers want to work in the RAND mode,
and not in the RF mode. There is no requirement for the IPR mode to be
explained, although several of the proposers have provided information
about it. It really does not matter whether other OASIS members agree
or not, or whether they feel the reasons are "legitimate."
One of the strengths of OASIS is the freedom for groups of members to
form TCs to work on areas of interest. There is no "right of veto" for
anyone (not the Board of Directors, the Technical Advisory Board, or the
opinion of other members), as long as the TC follows the process for
getting started.
Patrick mentions something about OASIS "accepting" TC proposals. There
is no "acceptance" process. There is an opportunity for members to
discuss the charter, and that discussion has been taking place on the
proper mailing list [oasis-charter-discuss], and is now reflected in
this member-discuss list, which is okay, as long as the message volume
doesn't get too high.
If an OASIS member does not like the proposed TC, they should not join
it. If a member wishes to create a similar TC with a different IPR
mode, that is certainly their right.
OASIS is a light-weight "organization for the advancement of structured
information standards," and I believe most of the members would like to
focus on their areas of technical interest, rather than trying to
enforce ideological or business-process conformity on other members.
Kind regards,
Paul Knight
Standards Advisor, Nortel Enterprise Solutions, CTO/CSO
Email paul.knight@nortel.com
Telephone +1 978 288 6414
Director, Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information
Standards (OASIS)
OASIS email: paul.knight@oasis-open.org
Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:52 AM
To: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14)
Cc: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org;
oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [oasis-member-discuss] Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for
Requirements?
Abbie,
How odd. My "pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR modes?"
My objection was that RAND is *meaningless* for this TC.
Requirements by definition are not subject to RAND. What part of that is
unclear?
Your counter is a marketing claim that telecom providers are comfortable
with it.
Being inclusive does not mean agreeing to whatever terms some arbitrary
proposal makes. Any more than consensus means (in ISO) that if the FOSS
community disagrees there isn't consensus. It cuts both ways. Of course
OASIS can be inclusive without blindly accepting every TC proposal, of
course ISO can have consensus even when the FOSS community disagrees.
Neither organization should be held hostage to the views of others, for
fear of not being "inclusive" or not having "consensus."
If you and your supporters have some legitimate reason why the RAND mode
is applicable to requirements, I am sure there are a number of us who
would like to hear it.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
Abbie Barbir wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> Well Telecom providers already know what their IPR commitments will be
> if they join this TC.
> It seems to me that you think that they are joining a RAND TC for the
> first time in their lives.
>
> In addition, it seems to me that you think that every RAND work will
> result in royalties.
>
> If you get over your pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR modes, you can
see
> that in order for OASIS to be inclusive, it has to be willing to work
> with companies in the IPR modes that they are comfortable with.
>
> Being deceiving is when you want to paint the world in your own color
> and by refusing to see others points or allow them to work in the IPR
> mode that they are comfortable with.
>
> Quite frankly, it is totally un-professional of you to accuse people
of
> being decieving just because they choose a supported OASIS IPR mode
that
> you do not agree with.
>
> I hope you have a nice day.
>
> Cheers
> Abbie
>
>
>
>
>
>
Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:28 PM
> To: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14)
> Cc: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
>
> Abbie,
>
> Abbie Barbir wrote:
>
>> Patrick
>> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
>> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only has to do with
allowing
>>
>
>
>> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environment that
>> they are used to.
>>
>>
>>
> RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although clearly permitted.
>
> Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing* if "allowing
> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same environments that
> they are used to" isn't marketing.
>
> Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom provider in order to
> get them to participate in OASIS.
>
> The work product of the TC appears to not be subject to RAND in any
> meaningful way.
>
> If it were, that would have been your first response.
>
> So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth, that RAND is
> meaningless for requirements and by extension for this TC.
>
> Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a strategy?
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>> Have a nice day
>> Regards
>> Abbie
>>
>>
>>
Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:25 PM
>> To: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
>>
>> Greetings!
>>
>> The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
>>
>> Orit Levin:
>>
>>
>>> 1. This TC is NOT going to produce any technical specifications.
>>> 2. This TC is about gathering requirements backed up by use cases
and
>>>
>
>
>>> scenarios and their applicability to existing technologies.
>>> 3. This TC is about bringing as many as possible telecoms and
vendors
>>>
>
>
>>> working in the Telecom area who feel most comfortable with RAND to
>>> contribute to the discussion.
>>>
>>>
>> and, Abbie Barbir:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Plus I would add that we will be dealing with other SDO such as TM
>>> Forum, ITU-T etc.. and working closely with them to get
requirements
>>>
>
>
>>> from their documents. These SDO operate under RAND and as such this
>>> make the flow of information between the OASIS SOA TC and the other
>>> SDO more fluid.
>>>
>>>
>> Seem very unpersuasive to me.
>>
>> First, I can't say that I am familiar with the practice of treating
>> requirements as IPR. Can someone point me to known legal authority
for
>>
>
>
>> the notion that a requirement is subject to some vendor's IPR?
>> (Granting that if I publish a book with a list of requirements, my
>> statement of the requirement may be copyrighted, i.e., "Text must be
>> presented in a
>> *bold* font." (copyright Patrick Durusau 2008) but the substance of
>> the requirement itself, that is that users want to use *bold* text, I
>> don't think is subject to any IPR claim.)
>>
>> Second, from what has been said the TC doesn't intend to produce
>> anything that is subject to any known IPR claim, thereby rendering
>> RAND rather meaningless.
>>
>> Third, following up on Abbie's comment, is making this TC operate
>> under RAND a marketing strategy to make it more attractive to vendors
>> who aren't advised well enough to realize that requirements are not
>> subject to IPR? Or who take false comfort from committees that
operate
>>
>
>
>> under RAND?
>>
>> While I am all for marketing OASIS as much as the next person I think
>> offering meaningless RAND on material that cannot be the subject of
>> IPR is a very bad marketing strategy. What do we say to those vendors
>> who falsely took our word that the requirements produced by this TC
>> were subject to RAND? Some dreaded FOSS group implements technology
to
>>
>
>
>> meet those requirements more cheaply and efficiently than commercial
>>
> vendors.
>
>> Then what do we say? No, let's be honest up front with all our
>> members, even commercial vendors.
>>
>> BTW, I think anyone who charters a TC under RAND should have to
>> specify what IP is being contributed under what conditions so that
>> OASIS members can make a determination as to whether they wish to
>>
> participate or not.
>
>> As far as I can tell at this point, neither Microsoft nor Nortel have
>> any IP as traditionally understood to contribute to this TC. So, why
>> the RAND? (Other than for false advertising purposes.)
>>
>> Hope everyone is having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Durusau
>> patrick@durusau.net
>> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
>> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format
TC
>>
>
>
>> (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1,
>> 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Patrick Durusau
> patrick@durusau.net
> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>
>
>
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php