"Proposed Business Plan" document posted as http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip

Sat Jan 21 01:27:35 CET 2012

(Merging responses from Gareth and Murata-san)

I'm glad that we are getting active discussion on this topic. I hope that we will continue to discuss this "F2F Requirement" and other elements of the proposed business plan, and arrive at an agreeable set of "house rules" for WG4 work. Let me take this opportunity to clarify my thoughts on the F2F requirement for important decisions and on the business plan concept generally. Sometimes what is completely clear to me as I write it is not as clear to others as they read it.

It would definitely slow progress beyond reason if we insisted that all DRs be closed only in F2F meetings. I am not in favor of that. But significant statements of direction or priority, such as the business plan currently being developed, and decisions to move a draft to the next stage (after updates as agreed to during a meeting), or to begin work on a new amendment, or revision, or other significant structural change to the standard should be made only after adequate deliberation, including opportunity for experts with divergent views to have smaller group discussions to determine where compromises can be made. A good example of the kind of decision that should be given F2F opportunity is what the criteria are to consider a decision "important" or "significant" enough to have the F2F requirement applied to it.

Gareth and Murata-san make good points about not everyone being able to participate in F2F meetings. I don't think anyone is in favor of excluding any of the WG4 experts from the decision making process. The purpose of the F2F requirement, as I understand it, is to ensure that important issues have been adequately discussed, and that opportunities for input from all interested participants have been provided (primarily through regular teleconferences). Would it be possible for WG4 F2F meetings to include a dial-in option as well, so that those unable to attend in person can ensure that their input during teleconferences is being adequately represented as the formal decision is adopted? Another option that could probably provide similar opportunity for adequate discussion would be, rather than requiring "important" decisions to be made at F2F meetings, we agree that "important" decisions should go to a 2-month WG vote (or some other period, as appropriate, based on the scope of the decision). Again, I don't think we have to rigidly structure our activity based on a long list of rules, but it would be helpful to have a general agreement on how WG4 activities should proceed.

The objective is not to prevent the work from getting done, or to delay the process for resolving DRs, but to define a set of guidelines under which the WG4 participants agree to operate in order to provide a predictable flow of work that the WG4 experts and consumers of ISO/IEC 29500 can rely on for resource planning, product planning, etc. I expect that if we continue this collaboration and can agree on the set of operating principles for WG4 (whether we call it a "business plan", "house rules", "WG4 best practices" or whatever) the resulting clarity in focus will allow the overall work of WG4 to move forward quicker than it does today.

These are my personal views, not those of Microsoft, Ecma, or the US. I look forward to a continued discussion of these views, and those of other WG4 participants.

Jim Thatcher

-----Original Message-----
From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 4:30 PM
To: SC34
Subject: Fwd: "Proposed Business Plan" document posted as http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip

As requested.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Horton, Gareth <Gareth_Horton at datawatch.com>
Date: 2012/1/18
Subject: RE: "Proposed Business Plan" document posted as http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip
To: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>, SC34 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>

Murata-san, Jim, Rex.

I think there needs to be some flexibility in respect of the venue for important decisions.

Although I agree it is desirable to try and take important decisions at face to face meetings, doing this exclusively has the side-effect of excluding some current participants who have committed a great amount of their time and expertise to the process.

Not only that, it may well dissuade those thinking of contributing, if they are not from an organization that can afford to fund very expensive international travel and the increased opportunity costs in terms of time that a face to face meeting incurs over and above a teleconference.

I would feel uncomfortable with a policy that would have the effect of completely excluding Caroline being involved in important decisions (I'm not speaking for Caroline, just to illustrate the effect).

There are many organizations which operate very strict policies on international travel for a variety of reasons, not just financial.  To have a policy which effectively reduces those not attending face to face meetings to second class citizens is unwise. In practice, this may be the reality, but I don't think we should prescribe it "in law".

Thanks

Gareth

Gareth Horton
Senior Product Manager
Datawatch Corporation
________________________________________
From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA Makoto [eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: 17 January 2012 22:29
To: SC34
Subject: Fwd: "Proposed Business Plan" document posted as http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip

(I hit the return key by mistake.  Let me try again.)

Jim,

A number of DRs have to be processed by teleconferences.
Do you think that none of them should be closed officially and be closed in F2F meetings only?  I don't think there is enough time in F2F meetings for that.  Or, do you think that approval of DCORs publication should be done only in F2F meetings?
Usually, we create reasonable drafts after F2F and approval happens in teleconferences following F2F meetings.

I have been involved in W3C, OASIS, and IDPF, very heavily.
None of them avoid decisions in teleconferences.  F2F meetings do have disadvantages.  Some people cannot afford.  Others
are too busy for trips.   WG4 has already decided to reduce
the number of F2F meetings of these reasons.

I am not sure if F2F meetings will always have more active participation.  I guess that we will miss Alex in the next F2F (and possibly more).  Are we going to eliminate him from important decisions?

I have heard some private discussions about assigning priorities to DRs.  Let me summarize them for further discussions in WG4.

   Usually, not-so-important DRs (such as missing period) are
   easy to address, and important DRs are hard to
   address.

   Somebody would like DRs to be addressed in the
   FIFO manner, and does not want somebody's important
   DRs to be fast-tracked.

   I have assigned time to those DRs which have proposed solutions.

Regards,
Makoto

2012/1/18 Jim Thatcher <Jim.Thatcher at microsoft.com>:
> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of intent here. It seems that Rex's proposal that important decisions be made only at F2F meetings is being interpreted as a recommendation that those important issues not be discussed or worked on outside of F2F meetings. I'm confident that this is not the intent behind Rex's proposal. Instead, I believe that Rex is proposing that official adoption of significant proposals be reserved done during F2F meetings, where participation is more active.
>
> In my experience with other standards committees that operate under a general rule that important decisions be taken at F2F meetings I have not seen this approach resulting in teleconferences being almost useless. What I have observed is that teleconferences provide a good forum for productive discussions, consideration of proposals, working through concerns, and arriving at a general consensus, with the formal decision to adopt that consensus as the committee's position being made at the following F2F. There is too little time at F2F meetings to have all of those discussions take place during the F2F meetings, and very often the discussions need some "bake time" for participants to think through issues, consider proposed alternatives, seek feedback from other interested parties, and such.
>
> I'm hopeful that we can start to involve other WG4 participants in the business plan discussions. That business plan should reflect the general consensus of WG4 participants regarding the relative priority of the different pieces of work before the WG. Rex has proposed a set of priorities, and I see significant merit in his proposal. I also recognize that there are existing DRs that are very important to particular members, and all WG members need to understand which issues are important to others. It's pretty unlikely that we will all agree across the board on the priority of every DR, but I expect we can agree on the priority level of most DRs.
>
> Beyond agreeing on the relative priority of the DRs it is also important that WG4 identify the experts that are willing to take responsibility for developing a proposed resolution for at least the high priority DRs. At least with respect to the resources that Microsoft sponsors, understanding the priority that WG4 attaches to each DR and the other experts committed to work on their resolutions is very important to me as I allocate those resources.
>
> Regards,
> Jim Thatcher
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA 
> Makoto
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:27 AM
> To: SC 34 WG4
> Subject: Re: "Proposed Business Plan" document posted as 
> http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2011-0220.zip
>
> (Wearing my JP hat)
>
>> As to Ecma, TC45 has no policy to delay anything.
>
> Re: "Taking important decisions at F2F Meetings only"
>
> Providing a solution to DR 09-0040 is probably the most important thing for Japan.  Thus, this sentence prevents WG4 from addressing it in teleconferences.  Since most issues are important for somebody, it makes teleconferences almost useless.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
>
>
>
>
>

--

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto

-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto