+1 from Tom Rutt, Fujitsu
Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
> I think that probably the main difficulty in all this is a poorly
> worded paragraph, and an unclearly communicated intention.
>
> Let's start with the motivation. As you all know, one of the salient
> characteristics of OASIS is its openness not just as regards its
> members but also as regards the public in general (and whoever doubts
> this
> should compare OASIS practices with those of other organizations; very
> few, if any, for instance, have world open archives of all email lists;
> very few have member open Board minutes; etc.) So it is imperative that
> this openness be protected and enhanced. The paragraph in question is
> designed to
> make sure that activities that would endanger this opennes are precluded.
> For instance, TC members communicating officially through a yahoo group
> would pose a grave danger to the openness of the process, since there
> would
> be no archived trace of those communications. To deposit spec drafts in a
> cvs repository outside of OASIS and only from time to time bring in
> milestones,
> depriving people outside of the TC (that is, people who may not know
> of the
> existence of the repository) the ability to trace the evolution of a
> spec,
> would also threaten the openness and accountability of the process.
>
> I could come up with many other examples, but let's not make this
> unnecessarily long. Just remember also that when the new IPR policy takes
> effect and things like Participation Obligation become important, having
> a proper archive of events, who's who, what's what and all that, becomes
> extra important.
>
> So what was that paragraph's intention? Simply that TC activities
> should take
> place in the space provided to the TC by OASIS with the tools provided
> to the
> TC by OASIS. Does that cover external efforts associated with the TC?
> Of course
> not. How could it? Does that cover the communications between some TC
> members
> (but not the TC itself)? Of course not. Does that preclude mirrorring the
> TC's documents in some other location? Of course not, as long as it's
> clear
> which is the canonical copy. And so on and so forth.
>
> Now, if someone could come up with a suggested new version of the
> paragraph
> that reflects all this....
>
> Thanks!
>
> PS -- btw, these are my opinions only, they don't reflect the opinions
> of anybody
> else or any given body, etc. etc.
>
>
>
> On 10/14/2004 08:20 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
>
>> The more I think about this, the more onerous it becomes. I
>> understand the need to have accountability that is underneath this
>> requirement, but compatibility with previous efforts tends to make it
>> unworkable as an absolute restriction. There are also external
>> efforts associated with TC standards efforts, such as FreebXML hosted
>> on SourceForge, as are other efforts, where testbeds are required to
>> test the workability and interoperability of standards, quite apart
>> from associated collateral materials that we development as
>> individuals or as companies, things like white papers, glossaries,
>> etc., that are not strictly OASIS contributions but which form part
>> of the bulwark of materials that support a standard or set of
>> standards and are indispensable to promotion and adoption of a standard.
>>
>> This all requires much more thought.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Rex
>>
>> At 9:21 AM -0400 10/14/04, Norman Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> / Matthew MacKenzie <> was heard to say:
>>> | "All resources of the TC and its associated
>>> | subcommittees, including web pages, documents, email
>>> | lists and any other discussions, must be located only
>>> | on facilities provided by OASIS; TCs and SCs may not
>>> | conduct business or technical discussions, store
>>> | documents, or host web pages on non-OASIS servers. All
>>> | web pages, documents, and email archives of all TCs
>>> | and SCs shall be publicly visible."
>>> |
>>> | So...will OASIS also be providing us with email accounts? I suggest
>>> | softening this passage considerably because at the end of the day if
>>> | OASIS restricts the tools we use, many of us will end up finding a
>>> | new home for our standards work.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Quoting the message I sent to the review list[1] before I
>>> noticed that discussion was taking place here:
>>>
>>>> All resources of the TC and its associated subcommittees, including
>>>> web pages, documents, email lists and any other discussions, must be
>>>> located only on facilities provided by OASIS; TCs and SCs may not
>>>> conduct business or technical discussions, store documents, or host
>>>> web pages on non-OASIS servers.
>>>>
>>>> By a strict interpretation of this clause, I am forbidden from
>>>> mirroring the DocBook specifications and schemas on docbook.org. Is
>>>> that the intent? Or is the intent merely that no TC content may appear
>>>> solely on non-OASIS servers?
>>>>
>>>> Suppose a third party, unaffiliated with OASIS or the TC constructs
>>>> such a mirror? Will OASIS pursue having those materials removed from
>>>> the mirror?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel compelled also to note that this requirement places a
>>> considerable burden on chairs and secretaries coming as it does in
>>> advance of an improved (i.e. useful and workable) document repository
>>> administered by OASIS.
>>>
>>> Be seeing you,
>>> norm
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tcproc-member-review/200410/msg00001.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>>> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
>>> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
>>> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>
>>> Attachment converted: Enterprise:Untitled ( / ) (002F64D6)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
