legalxml-sc — archive

[Scott McGrath <jcabral@mtgmc.com>]

Jim, All, I understand your frustration, I share that and am trying to add clarity where there was not sufficient clarity before. On this issue of the reimbursement, we are working to make that happen. But I need to create the clarity of shared understanding first--and understand that audience also includes the board. I think the fundamental disconnect comes from misunderstanding. Recall first, the board resolution, which reads, as reported to the SC http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-sc/email/archives/201010/msg00003.html "RESOLUTION 2010-10-12.08, Prohibit Legal XML member section from making any further spending commitments until they have convinced the Board that they are a going concern." George sent a message to the board indicating a list of things the SC intended to do http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-sc/email/archives/201012/msg00021.html On March 29, 4 months after George's message, Chairman of the Board Peter Brown sent an off-list message to the then SC members which read in part..."Indeed, the Board’s responsibility is to assess whether or not the member section is a going concern. To date, we have not been presented evidence of this,..." . I'll paraphrase here, but I believe that in using the word "evidence" the board expected action, in addition to discussion of things the group might do. Nothing on the list George sent seemed to have occurred, nor had their been any significant results from the Stanford event as hoped. The Board did not lift the freeze. The Board never gave any indication they lifted the freeze. Peter's message made it clear they did not. Yet, the Steering committee voted to spend further assets in the future, but unfortunately, that future spending came before the spending freeze was lifted. Now we have a conundrum. But, I think now we also have an opportunity made possible by recent action. The RuleML TC is moving forward, members are standing up and taking notice of LegalXML and your work. This is in no small part because of your leadership, you Monica and Robert seem to be gelling and making things happen. I know you made the funding commitments in good faith, I am working to support those commitments. Jim, I also know that the SC is only three people, all who have "real jobs" to do. 18 months ago, I raised the question of whether the bureaucratic load of the Steering Committee and the Member Section structure offered the legalXML members enough value to justify the work you folks put into it. With limited time and energy, I wonder if its better spent in the TC work. Given that most OASIS TCs successfully operate without affiliation with a Member Section, that opportunity always exists for the legalxml TCs. While the Board has made clear their interest in seeing action, you should have a higher metric. LegalXML should be more than Monica, Robert and Jim. There are 16 entities who are already documented as Supporting Entities of legalXML, some small companies and agencies, some very large. But very few of them have been participating in the governance of the Member Section. Some of the member's email dialog following the announcement of the spending freeze illustrated to me a disconnect between the governance and the member's whose dues you seek to spend. Having more members involved will make your work on the SC easier to do and easier to rationalize. I hope this helps you better understand some of the issues at play, and that we are working to get past all that. I'll keep you updated, Scott... On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:11 PM, James E Cabral <jcabral@mtgmc.com> wrote: > > Dee, > > Honestly, I'm frustrated trying to understand what the OASIS staff and board expect of LegalXML.  After our Steering Committee call today, I can safely say that Robert and Monica feel the same way.  Scott McGrath suggested Monday that we should talk but we have not connected yet. > > Specifically, the Steering Committee was asked to provide a program and spending plan.  At the October 3 F2F meeting of the Steering Committee, which Jamie Clark attended, we approved several expenditures including up to $2000 for a representative of OASIS and LegalXML to attend the RuleML 2011 conference in Fort Lauderdale November 3-5. The minutes, attached, were posted to Kavi on October 10.  In the end, I represented LegalXML since our first choice, Tom Clarke from NCSC, was unable to attend. > > I  did not have any discussions with Laurent regarding the spending plan or this allocation specifically.  Was I was expected to send the minutes to Laurent to be included in the Board's agenda?  Regardless, I know that the Board received them because Laurent invite me to attend the Board meeting to discuss them.  Unfortunately, he proposed a time that I had already explained I was unavailable and no alternate time was suggested. > > Scott McGrath's email earlier this week that the Board had not lifted the spending freeze was news to me and the other members of the Steering Committee.  Since no minutes have been posted from OASIS Board meetings since July, how were we to know this? > > As to this specific expense, who will need to review this request for reimbursement?  When will it be reviewed? Is there anything else you need from me? > > Feel free to give me a call if you think it will help reduce the confusion. > >  Thanks, > > Jim Cabral > MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C. > www.mtgmc.com > (206) 442-5010 Phone > (502) 509-4532 Mobile > > Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve. > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > >