OASIS Emergency Management TC

At today's meeting, the EMTC discussed whether to accept a drafting 
recommendation that the DHS IPAWS requirements be included as an 
appendix to the CAP profile itself as a Committee Draft.

Art opposes that material being included, for reasons stated in 
earlier e-mails.  Which is fine.  But there've also been 
insinuations of inappropiate behavior by those who disagree.  That's 
not fine, and we have to respectfully disagree with Art's assertion 
of an improper conflict here.

The TC can chose to include the material, or not, as it sees fit. 
Sometimes TCs include contributed non-normative material;  sometimes 
they don't.  This is not a policy matter.

But it also was suggested that TC members who are DHS staff or DHS 
contractors are acting improperly, if they favor including the DHS 
material.  That's silly.  Standards committee members are all 
experts, with biases, which they bring into a TC ... to hammer out 
compromises .. which is what we do in standards work.  As long as 
the deliberations are carried out properly and transparently under 
our rules, no-one should be attacked for having an opinion.

It also was suggested that OASIS or its staff has some intent to 
control the TC.  That's silly, too.  The TC is free to make its own 
choices.  Art expressed concern about the contract OASIS made with 
DHS to provide some assistance and information to DHS about the 
spec.  OASIS could not have agreed to a contract that asked us to 
influence or assure the technical decisions made by the TC.  And we 
didn't.  Because we don't have that power.

The contract was not posted to the TC because, for whatever reason, 
the contractor set some rules around how it's disclosed.  Which Art 
and everyone is welcome to pursue.

We respectfully suggest that the TC members focus on the technical 
merits of excluding or including the appendix, rather than impugning 
motives, and then resolve the issue by voting.

Regards JBC

~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark

> Friends -
> 
> In the course of today's Emergency Management TC meeting a DHS
> representative expressed the opinion that OASIS is under a contractual
> obligations to expedite the processing of the IPAWS profile over and above
> the OASIS TC Process.  As we've been unable to obtain a copy of that
> contract, and considering that the numerous OASIS staff who were taking an
> active part in our meeting didn't appear to contradict that claim, I guess
> we have to assume that it's true.
> 
> Therefore I'm forced, reluctantly, to the conclusion that this process is
> seriously compromised by conflicts of interest.  I have asked that my name
> be removed from the list of editors of the IPAWS draft and I will be
> considering whether renewing my agency's OASIS membership would be in the
> best interests of the people of Contra Costa County.
> 
> - Art

hi, (deleting all the public folks)

     First, let me say that i don't believe that there is any hanky  
panky, for lack of a better term :-), going on.
     However, when i was talking to mary yesterday in an attempt to  
clarify some facts and understand what was going on, i took away the  
following understandings, which i wold like confirm or be educated as  
to the correct understandings:
1. OASIS has a contract with DHS to expedite and make sure some work  
on emergency "stuff" happens.
2. some members of the TC are being paid as contractors to work on the  
project
3. they are being paid by OASIS via the funding per the contract from  
DHS
4. the contract says its terms can't be disclosed
5. the contract may say OASIS should "expedite" the work (if so please  
clarify what "expedite" means), which seems to be "public" knowledge

Even w/o 5, there is room for the following "paranoid" interpretation.
Since there are members of the TC who are receiving money from OASIS  
to work on the TC, they could be told how to vote, by OASIS, as a  
condition for their work. There also could be some clauses in the  
contract that require OASIS to direct those folks, who after all are  
working for OASIS, to take certain positions, vote in particular ways,  
etc., etc. If you couple that with 4 and 3 (above), and you don't like  
what is going on in the TC, it is easy to claim/imagine all sorts of  
nefarious conspiracies.

Let me REPEAT, i'm not saying that OASIS is engaging in any of this,  
but merely that one could interpret the facts, if i've got them right  
above in that way.

The obvious way to alleviate those fears in this case now is to make  
the contract public, or possibly wait until someone can file the FOIA  
request and wait for DHS to produce the answer, before the TC proceeds  
further.

As a secondary issue:

 From my discussions, i've "heard" that OASIS MAY have signed this  
contract/started work on it without first having seen the text. I'd  
like to verify if this is merely loose talk/rumor or the case. One  
description of the events that i've heard is, "it will take too long  
to work out the text, so just go ahead and  start and will do the  
paperwork later". I would like this clarified by OASIS staff ASAP.

Obviously, as a Board member I have grave concerns if OASIS is  
agreeing to or has agreed to contracts without having seen the text/ 
terms and reviewed them.

Let me emphasize that i am not trying to imply, nor do I believe  
(based on what i've heard and seen to date) that anyone on the TC or  
OASIS staff has acted improperly. Aside from Art's unsubstantiated  
rantings, i haven't seen any evidence. Mary expressed incredulity to  
me when i pushed her on 1-5 and the paranoid scenario, but "why would  
we do that? "We just want to make sure the freaking spec gets written,  
and maybe earn a little money for OASIS at the same time"

cheers,
    jeff

On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:42 PM, James Bryce Clark wrote:

> At today's meeting, the EMTC discussed whether to accept a drafting  
> recommendation that the DHS IPAWS requirements be included as an  
> appendix to the CAP profile itself as a Committee Draft.
>
> Art opposes that material being included, for reasons stated in  
> earlier e-mails.  Which is fine.  But there've also been  
> insinuations of inappropiate behavior by those who disagree.  That's  
> not fine, and we have to respectfully disagree with Art's assertion  
> of an improper conflict here.
>
> The TC can chose to include the material, or not, as it sees fit.  
> Sometimes TCs include contributed non-normative material;  sometimes  
> they don't.  This is not a policy matter.
>
> But it also was suggested that TC members who are DHS staff or DHS  
> contractors are acting improperly, if they favor including the DHS  
> material.  That's silly.  Standards committee members are all  
> experts, with biases, which they bring into a TC ... to hammer out  
> compromises .. which is what we do in standards work.  As long as  
> the deliberations are carried out properly and transparently under  
> our rules, no-one should be attacked for having an opinion.
>
> It also was suggested that OASIS or its staff has some intent to  
> control the TC.  That's silly, too.  The TC is free to make its own  
> choices.  Art expressed concern about the contract OASIS made with  
> DHS to provide some assistance and information to DHS about the  
> spec.  OASIS could not have agreed to a contract that asked us to  
> influence or assure the technical decisions made by the TC.  And we  
> didn't.  Because we don't have that power.
>
> The contract was not posted to the TC because, for whatever reason,  
> the contractor set some rules around how it's disclosed.  Which Art  
> and everyone is welcome to pursue.
>
> We respectfully suggest that the TC members focus on the technical  
> merits of excluding or including the appendix, rather than impugning  
> motives, and then resolve the issue by voting.
>
> Regards JBC
>
> ~ James Bryce Clark
> ~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
> ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
>
>> Friends -
>> In the course of today's Emergency Management TC meeting a DHS
>> representative expressed the opinion that OASIS is under a  
>> contractual
>> obligations to expedite the processing of the IPAWS profile over  
>> and above
>> the OASIS TC Process.  As we've been unable to obtain a copy of that
>> contract, and considering that the numerous OASIS staff who were  
>> taking an
>> active part in our meeting didn't appear to contradict that claim,  
>> I guess
>> we have to assume that it's true.
>> Therefore I'm forced, reluctantly, to the conclusion that this  
>> process is
>> seriously compromised by conflicts of interest.  I have asked that  
>> my name
>> be removed from the list of editors of the IPAWS draft and I will be
>> considering whether renewing my agency's OASIS membership would be  
>> in the
>> best interests of the people of Contra Costa County.
>> - Art
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: oasis-board-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: oasis-board-comment-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>

--
Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975
	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Replies inline:

>

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
>From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:17 AM
>To: James Bryce Clark
>Cc: Scott McGrath; Mary McRae; Expanded Board List
>Subject: Re: CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues
>
>hi, (deleting all the public folks)
>
>     First, let me say that i don't believe that there is any hanky
>panky, for lack of a better term :-), going on.
>     However, when i was talking to mary yesterday in an attempt to
>clarify some facts and understand what was going on, i took away the
>following understandings, which i wold like confirm or be educated as
>to the correct understandings:
>1. OASIS has a contract with DHS to expedite and make sure some work
>on emergency "stuff" happens.
[Scott said:]
Yes, for clarity of what "stuff" we are asked to do, see the Statement of
Work, appended to the bottom of this mail message.

>2. some members of the TC are being paid as contractors to work on the
>project
>3. they are being paid by OASIS via the funding per the contract from
>DHS
[Scott said:]
Yes
>4. the contract says its terms can't be disclosed
[Scott said:]
Yes, as a third or fourth tier subcontractor, we have no option on that.
Just as your company probably has an employee rule that says press inquiries
are handled by PR, legal inquiries by legal dept etc, the feds want to
control what is said about their contracts. This, I was told, is standard
boilerplate, non-negotiable.  The text of the clause follows, but I'd note
that the SOW over-rides the "technical" disclosure issue - our job is to get
the "technical" work into the OASIS public domain.  


>5. the contract may say OASIS should "expedite" the work (if so please
>clarify what "expedite" means), which seems to be "public" knowledge

[Scott said:]
There is no language to expedite, or pressure to over-ride the TC process.
See SOW appended to the bottom of this thread. 

>Even w/o 5, there is room for the following "paranoid" interpretation.
>Since there are members of the TC who are receiving money from OASIS
>to work on the TC, they could be told how to vote, by OASIS, as a
>condition for their work. There also could be some clauses in the
>contract that require OASIS to direct those folks, who after all are
>working for OASIS, to take certain positions, vote in particular ways,
>etc., etc. If you couple that with 4 and 3 (above), and you don't like
>what is going on in the TC, it is easy to claim/imagine all sorts of
>nefarious conspiracies.
[Scott said:]
I'm advocating to my contacts at JH APL (where our contract comes from) and
DHS (where the prime contract comes from) that we be allowed to disclose to
members the SOW.  They have thus far vigorously said no, SOP is all contract
information requests go through FOIA, period.  FWIW, DHS could have
contracted directly with the contractors we are using, but they came to me,
asking us to be involved because they wanted to give a layer of separation
so they can't influence, or be seen as influencing. 
>
>Let me REPEAT, i'm not saying that OASIS is engaging in any of this,
>but merely that one could interpret the facts, if i've got them right
>above in that way.
>
>The obvious way to alleviate those fears in this case now is to make
>the contract public, or possibly wait until someone can file the FOIA
>request and wait for DHS to produce the answer, before the TC proceeds
>further.
[Scott said:]
The TC took that option to vote and it failed.  BUT, the reality is that,
because we are a sub-contractor to a sub, to a sub, the FOIA request may
never expose the contract. 
>
>As a secondary issue:
>
> From my discussions, i've "heard" that OASIS MAY have signed this
>contract/started work on it without first having seen the text. I'd
>like to verify if this is merely loose talk/rumor or the case. One
>description of the events that i've heard is, "it will take too long
>to work out the text, so just go ahead and  start and will do the
>paperwork later". I would like this clarified by OASIS staff ASAP.
[Scott said:]
Federal contracting takes a long time. ;-0  They acknowledge that and
mitigate our costs by issuing a Pre Contract Cost Authorization letter.  Our
PCCA is dated 1/16/09  I've been told any work done before that should be
dated after the PCCA date for payment.  The contract was signed 13 Feb.  We
have not yet formally contracted with the members involved, waiting to
receive our contract.  They are tracking their hours spent that will
ultimately be paid hours or volunteer time--and they acknowledge it could
ultimately be either.
>
>Obviously, as a Board member I have grave concerns if OASIS is
>agreeing to or has agreed to contracts without having seen the text/
>terms and reviewed them.
>
>Let me emphasize that i am not trying to imply, nor do I believe
>(based on what i've heard and seen to date) that anyone on the TC or
>OASIS staff has acted improperly. Aside from Art's unsubstantiated
>rantings, i haven't seen any evidence. Mary expressed incredulity to
>me when i pushed her on 1-5 and the paranoid scenario, but "why would
>we do that? "We just want to make sure the freaking spec gets written,
>and maybe earn a little money for OASIS at the same time"
>
>cheers,
>    jeff
>
>On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:42 PM, James Bryce Clark wrote:
>
>> At today's meeting, the EMTC discussed whether to accept a drafting
>> recommendation that the DHS IPAWS requirements be included as an
>> appendix to the CAP profile itself as a Committee Draft.
>>
>> Art opposes that material being included, for reasons stated in
>> earlier e-mails.  Which is fine.  But there've also been
>> insinuations of inappropiate behavior by those who disagree.  That's
>> not fine, and we have to respectfully disagree with Art's assertion
>> of an improper conflict here.
>>
>> The TC can chose to include the material, or not, as it sees fit.
>> Sometimes TCs include contributed non-normative material;  sometimes
>> they don't.  This is not a policy matter.
>>
>> But it also was suggested that TC members who are DHS staff or DHS
>> contractors are acting improperly, if they favor including the DHS
>> material.  That's silly.  Standards committee members are all
>> experts, with biases, which they bring into a TC ... to hammer out
>> compromises .. which is what we do in standards work.  As long as
>> the deliberations are carried out properly and transparently under
>> our rules, no-one should be attacked for having an opinion.
>>
>> It also was suggested that OASIS or its staff has some intent to
>> control the TC.  That's silly, too.  The TC is free to make its own
>> choices.  Art expressed concern about the contract OASIS made with
>> DHS to provide some assistance and information to DHS about the
>> spec.  OASIS could not have agreed to a contract that asked us to
>> influence or assure the technical decisions made by the TC.  And we
>> didn't.  Because we don't have that power.
>>
>> The contract was not posted to the TC because, for whatever reason,
>> the contractor set some rules around how it's disclosed.  Which Art
>> and everyone is welcome to pursue.
>>
>> We respectfully suggest that the TC members focus on the technical
>> merits of excluding or including the appendix, rather than impugning
>> motives, and then resolve the issue by voting.
>>
>> Regards JBC
>>
>> ~ James Bryce Clark
>> ~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
>> ~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
>>
>>> Friends -
>>> In the course of today's Emergency Management TC meeting a DHS
>>> representative expressed the opinion that OASIS is under a
>>> contractual
>>> obligations to expedite the processing of the IPAWS profile over
>>> and above
>>> the OASIS TC Process.  As we've been unable to obtain a copy of that
>>> contract, and considering that the numerous OASIS staff who were
>>> taking an
>>> active part in our meeting didn't appear to contradict that claim,
>>> I guess
>>> we have to assume that it's true.
>>> Therefore I'm forced, reluctantly, to the conclusion that this
>>> process is
>>> seriously compromised by conflicts of interest.  I have asked that
>>> my name
>>> be removed from the list of editors of the IPAWS draft and I will be
>>> considering whether renewing my agency's OASIS membership would be
>>> in the
>>> best interests of the people of Contra Costa County.
>>> - Art
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: oasis-board-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-
>open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: oasis-board-comment-help@lists.oasis-
>open.org
>>
>
>--
>Jeff Mischkinsky
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
>Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware
+1(650)506-1975
>	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle
>Parkway, M/S 2OP9
>Oracle								Redwood
Shores, CA
>94065
>
STATEMENT OF WORK STARTS HERE

TASK 1(A): Support the IPAWS CAP Profile development and approval process
activities that may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i)
Prepare recommendations to the OASIS Emergency Management Technical
Sub-committee, the OIC and FEMA IPAWS Federal Working Group (FWG);
(ii)
Develop technical documentation to support the IPAWS Common Alert Protocol
(CAP v1.1) Profile Requirements and Technical Specification document through
the entire OASIS requirements and approval process;
(iii)
Prepare and work with the OASIS EM TC to develop, refine and approve the
Profile at least through the Technical Subcommittee approval which includes
creating the draft documentation and final materials for submission to the
OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee (OASIS EM TC) during the
entire Profile approval process;
(iv)
Work with the appropriate technical committees and stakeholders to manage
the Profile approval process and work to resolve issues;
(v)
Assist with the completion of final approved Profile;
(vi)
The Performer will coordinate meetings, track issues, facilitate resolutions
to issues, update OIC and FEMA management on status and provide project
support to the IPAWS CAP EAS Profile process.
TASK 1(B): Participate in the standards development organization process by
providing subject matter expertise and by serving as an interface between
S&T OIC, FEMA IPAWS and other stakeholder bodies and organization.
Deliverables: Monthly program status report (both written and electronic) by
the twelfth of the following month to APL. The report should contain metrics
pertaining to financial, schedule, and scope information, risk information,
and performance assessment information of all work performed hereunder.
Enclosure 1
Rev 11/7/06

I don't see anything under

Isn't the contract the "business and financial information" sent?

I've been told in no uncertain terms that we are not allowed to release
"any" information. That is coming from Bill Kain, at DHS (the Prime
contractor)  He may be overreacting to the "Art's a jerk, so I'm not helping
him" factor, because there is bad blood there. I am trying top get clarity
on that, scheduling a call with JPL contracting officer for Thursday.

Scott...

>

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
>From: Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM [mailto:Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:15 PM
>To: Scott McGrath
>Cc: 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'James Bryce Clark'; 'Mary McRae'; 'Expanded Board
>List'
>Subject: Re: [board-plus] RE: CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues
>
>I don't see anything under
>

On 02/18/2009 10:45 AM, Scott McGrath wrote:
> Isn't the contract the "business and financial information" sent?

I guess it depends on who's your lawyer ;-)

But if that is true, it certainly does not cover the business and
financial information that the APL does NOT transmit to the contractor,
such as expediting the TC process.


> 
> I've been told in no uncertain terms that we are not allowed to release
> "any" information. That is coming from Bill Kain, at DHS (the Prime
> contractor)  He may be overreacting to the "Art's a jerk, so I'm not helping
> him" factor, because there is bad blood there. I am trying top get clarity
> on that, scheduling a call with JPL contracting officer for Thursday.
> 
> Scott...
> 
>> 

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
>> From: Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM [mailto:Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:15 PM
>> To: Scott McGrath
>> Cc: 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'James Bryce Clark'; 'Mary McRae'; 'Expanded Board
>> List'
>> Subject: Re: [board-plus] RE: CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues
>>
>> I don't see anything under
>> 

 From my prior experience in performing under government contracts and  
sub-contracts:
1) The contract is "owned" by the contracting officer.  No other  
entity, other than the freedom of information act process, has  
authority.
2) Part of the often-stated reason for non-disclosure is to avoid  
bickering amongst folks who got awards (I will make it difficult for  
you to perform your part), and amongst those that didn't who felt that  
they ought to.  Many contracts get challenged by those who didn't get  
a piece of the action.
3) Especially for small companies, and where the contract has  
"material impact" on the company, the contracting office can be asked  
to prepare a synopsis which may be disclosed.  It is up to the  
contracting officer to do this or not at his discretion.
-bob

On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Scott McGrath wrote:

> Isn't the contract the "business and financial information" sent?
>
> I've been told in no uncertain terms that we are not allowed to  
> release
> "any" information. That is coming from Bill Kain, at DHS (the Prime
> contractor)  He may be overreacting to the "Art's a jerk, so I'm not  
> helping
> him" factor, because there is bad blood there. I am trying top get  
> clarity
> on that, scheduling a call with JPL contracting officer for Thursday.
>
> Scott...
>
>> 

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
>> From: Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM [mailto:Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:15 PM
>> To: Scott McGrath
>> Cc: 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'James Bryce Clark'; 'Mary McRae';  
>> 'Expanded Board
>> List'
>> Subject: Re: [board-plus] RE: CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues
>>
>> I don't see anything under
>> 

As a follow-up,
One of the reasons that a synopsis is required is that often, a  
company will need to obtain financing to perform.  Banks often  
required such a synopsis as proof of contract.
-bob

On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:09 PM, Bob Freund wrote:

> From my prior experience in performing under government contracts  
> and sub-contracts:
> 1) The contract is "owned" by the contracting officer.  No other  
> entity, other than the freedom of information act process, has  
> authority.
> 2) Part of the often-stated reason for non-disclosure is to avoid  
> bickering amongst folks who got awards (I will make it difficult for  
> you to perform your part), and amongst those that didn't who felt  
> that they ought to.  Many contracts get challenged by those who  
> didn't get a piece of the action.
> 3) Especially for small companies, and where the contract has  
> "material impact" on the company, the contracting office can be  
> asked to prepare a synopsis which may be disclosed.  It is up to the  
> contracting officer to do this or not at his discretion.
> -bob
>
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:45 PM, Scott McGrath wrote:
>
>> Isn't the contract the "business and financial information" sent?
>>
>> I've been told in no uncertain terms that we are not allowed to  
>> release
>> "any" information. That is coming from Bill Kain, at DHS (the Prime
>> contractor)  He may be overreacting to the "Art's a jerk, so I'm  
>> not helping
>> him" factor, because there is bad blood there. I am trying top get  
>> clarity
>> on that, scheduling a call with JPL contracting officer for Thursday.
>>
>> Scott...
>>
>>> 

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
>>> From: Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM [mailto:Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:15 PM
>>> To: Scott McGrath
>>> Cc: 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; 'James Bryce Clark'; 'Mary McRae';  
>>> 'Expanded Board
>>> List'
>>> Subject: Re: [board-plus] RE: CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues
>>>
>>> I don't see anything under
>>> 

>2) Part of the often-stated reason for non-disclosure is to avoid
>bickering amongst folks who got awards (I will make it difficult for
>you to perform your part), and amongst those that didn't who felt that
>they ought to.  Many contracts get challenged by those who didn't get
>a piece of the action.

This  might be a factor ;-)

On 18 Feb 2009, at 12:42, James Bryce Clark wrote:

> But it also was suggested that TC members who are DHS staff or DHS
> contractors are acting improperly, if they favor including the DHS
> material.  That's silly.  Standards committee members are all
> experts, with biases, which they bring into a TC ... to hammer out
> compromises .. which is what we do in standards work.  As long as
> the deliberations are carried out properly and transparently under
> our rules, no-one should be attacked for having an opinion.
>
> It also was suggested that OASIS or its staff has some intent to
> control the TC.  That's silly, too.  The TC is free to make its own
> choices.  Art expressed concern about the contract OASIS made with
> DHS to provide some assistance and information to DHS about the
> spec.  OASIS could not have agreed to a contract that asked us to
> influence or assure the technical decisions made by the TC.  And we
> didn't.  Because we don't have that power.
>
> The contract was not posted to the TC because, for whatever reason,
> the contractor set some rules around how it's disclosed.  Which Art
> and everyone is welcome to pursue.


James, in the first para you say "as long as the deliberations are  
carried out transparently"....then you say (3rd para) that a Contract  
between OASIS and DHS related to "providing assistance" to a DHS about  
an EMTC spec cannot be made available to the TC for "whatever reason".

Could you explain the apparent contradiction?

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
NICTA

Hi Renato,

 I'll let Jamie speak for himself, but as the OASIS TC Administrator it is
my responsibility to ensure that the TC Process Policy is adhered to. That
Policy requires all work of a TC to be publicly visible, and that is the
case here. The initial requirements document was contributed to the TC as
required, a subcommittee was created to work on the profile specification
and all their work is publicly viewable/minuted/archived, as are the current
TC deliberations. I will not accept submission of a document for public
review unless it meets all criteria contained in the TC Process and related
rules (templates, naming guidelines, etc.) and has been properly voted on
and approved by a full majority of voting members.

All the best,

Mary


___________________________________________________________
Mary P McRae
Director, Technical Committee Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org  
web: www.oasis-open.org
phone: 1.603.232.9090



> 

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
> From: Renato Iannella [mailto:renato@nicta.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 1:49 AM
> To: James Bryce Clark
> Cc: emergency@lists.oasis-open.org; Art Botterell; oasis-board-
> comment@lists.oasis-open.org; Scott McGrath; Mary McRae
> Subject: Re: [emergency] Re CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues
> 
> 
> On 18 Feb 2009, at 12:42, James Bryce Clark wrote:
> 
> > But it also was suggested that TC members who are DHS staff or DHS
> > contractors are acting improperly, if they favor including the DHS
> > material.  That's silly.  Standards committee members are all
> > experts, with biases, which they bring into a TC ... to hammer out
> > compromises .. which is what we do in standards work.  As long as
> > the deliberations are carried out properly and transparently under
> > our rules, no-one should be attacked for having an opinion.
> >
> > It also was suggested that OASIS or its staff has some intent to
> > control the TC.  That's silly, too.  The TC is free to make its own
> > choices.  Art expressed concern about the contract OASIS made with
> > DHS to provide some assistance and information to DHS about the
> > spec.  OASIS could not have agreed to a contract that asked us to
> > influence or assure the technical decisions made by the TC.  And we
> > didn't.  Because we don't have that power.
> >
> > The contract was not posted to the TC because, for whatever reason,
> > the contractor set some rules around how it's disclosed.  Which Art
> > and everyone is welcome to pursue.
> 
> 
> James, in the first para you say "as long as the deliberations are
> carried out transparently"....then you say (3rd para) that a Contract
> between OASIS and DHS related to "providing assistance" to a DHS about
> an EMTC spec cannot be made available to the TC for "whatever reason".
> 
> Could you explain the apparent contradiction?
> 
> Cheers...  Renato Iannella
> NICTA

On 20 Feb 2009, at 01:34, Mary McRae wrote:

> I'll let Jamie speak for himself,

I look forward to his response.

> but as the OASIS TC Administrator it is
> my responsibility to ensure that the TC Process Policy is adhered to.


Agree - but I think that the OASIS policies are missing key  
requirements for open/transparent processes.
These are related to conflicts of interests.

Our friends over at W3C have addressed this and I recommend to OASIS  
(and the Board) to adopt similar policies asap.

For example, COI policy for members: