RE: ebXML Question re: Comments by Organizations

[jmotley@globaltechltd.com]

I think an organization is different.  It represents a collective body that has
reached a consensus.  They should be counted differently.  I actually was
thinking about X12 when the note about CEN/ISSS was posted.  Imagine if an
opportunity to have X12 agree with/merge/work with CEFACT was presented.  Would
you let it pass or find a way to integrate/merge their efforts?  It seems that
if you let the opportunity pass at the start that you are asking for history to
repeat.

It seems that if a mechanism to integrate organizational input was structured it
would create an environment that would facilitate the assimilation of colletive
consensus.  Also it would be great if the organizations integrated their efforts
and leveraged their collective capacity.   It seemed that ebXML was being
offered that opportunity.   I think that history tells us what happens when this
is not accounted for.  You are inviting the creation of myXML.org to set the
standard for whatever that organization is whenever the time comes that the
implementations differ and there is no mechanism to resolve the difference.

XML/EDI is new enough, and there is sufficient lack of direction in the general
population for you to write a new set of rules and build a new metaphor.  It
simply seemed like a great opportunity.

Frankly I was hoping to avoid paying dues to myXML.org and having to buy their
standards book/CD too  ;-)  Better yet, if I get my company to agree to figuring
out the coordination role can I get a free ebXML CD?

I know it is not a simple subject and appreciate your time.

Thanks again for your consideration,
John Motley






"Rachel Foerster" <rachelf@ix.netcom.com> on 03/28/2000 07:54:59 PM

Please respond to rachelf@ix.netcom.com

To:   jmotley/Globaltechltd@Globaltechltd
cc:   "'Mark CRAWFORD'" <mcrawfor@lmi.org>, rawlins@metronet.com, lms@wwnet.com,
      sutor@us.ibm.com, anders.grangard@edifrance.org,
      annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com, bill.smith@sun.com,
      dick.raman@cab-edi.net, drummond@onramp.net, duane@xmlglobal.com,
      klaus@templar.net, plevine@telcordia.com, raywalker@attglobal.net,
      scott.nieman@NorstanConsulting.com,
      ebXML-Requirements@lists.oasis-open.org

Subject:  RE: ebXML Question re: Comments by Organizations



Quite frankly I see no reason why an organization couldn't be viewed/treated
the same as an individual. In other words, both entities are "parties."
Since when do we have to count noses? If an organization
comments/participates that's great, but the same goes for individuals.

Why don't we agree that individual = organization and not get caught up in
trying to count individual people. This is consistent with the way X12
works. The "member" is either an individual (independent member) or an
organization. If an organization, then there are designated voting
representatives. Each carries equal weight in any "voting." Further, what's
so bad if more than one individual (person) from the same organization
wishes to comment. The more ideas and input into our work products the
better the end product will be, dont you think?

Rachel


>
>
>
> As a mostly reader of these messages (and an X12 member) I
> can only provide a
> word of caution on what you are discussing and the potential
> harm to the
> progress and initiative you are achieving.  You are saying
> that only individuals
> participate in ebXML.  My interest to follow your work was
> based on it being
> sanctioned by OASIS, X12 and CEFACT.
>
> This thread is very disconcerting.  You should come up with a
> mechanism to
> digest the feedback of organizations.  It is a wonderful
> opportunity to add them
> to the list of groups sanctioning your work.  As long as an
> organized way is
> developed to process the input and feedback a reply and
> acknowledgement.  You
> may want to constrain the list to "user communities" as
> opposed to corporations.
>
> Please do not reply to these people that "you have to be an
> individual member."
> That means you are saying "organizations" can't be members.
> Your web site and
> all your press releases talk all about the "organizations"
> that are coming
> together as ebXML.  Would you remove those references as well.
>
> They are comming to the table.  This is great!  Just set some
> rules for an
> organization to participate.  Take advantage of their
> infrastruture.   Make them
> do the legwork to do a qualified submission.  Set the rules
> for what is a
> "qualified" submission.  Make them say that if you agree to
> work on their
> qualified submission that they are endorsing your effort.
>
> It seems pretty straight forward.  Welcome the organizations,
> or tell them they
> can't participate.  Saying they can't participate means you
> need to update a lot
> of your PR material.  I for one thought there was some type
> of  X12 delegate.
> ebXML becomes a whole different entity if all the X12 members
> here are here as
> individuals.  I would tend to focus a lot more on the domain
> names on the e-mail
> addresses in that case.
>
> Sorry for interrupting!
> John Motley
>
>
>
>
>
> "Rachel Foerster" <rachelf@ix.netcom.com> on 03/28/2000 04:20:53 PM
>
> Please respond to rachelf@ix.netcom.com
>
> To:   "'Mark CRAWFORD'" <mcrawfor@lmi.org>,
> rawlins@metronet.com, lms@wwnet.com
> cc:   sutor@us.ibm.com, anders.grangard@edifrance.org,
>       annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com, bill.smith@sun.com,
>       dick.raman@cab-edi.net, drummond@onramp.net,
> duane@xmlglobal.com,
>       klaus@templar.net, plevine@telcordia.com,
> raywalker@attglobal.net,
>       scott.nieman@NorstanConsulting.com,
>       ebXML-Requirements@lists.oasis-open.org (bcc:
> jmotley/Globaltechltd)
>
> Subject:  RE: ebXML Question re: Comments by Organizations
>
>
>
> I concur with Mark's comments. We would only be opening a big
> can of worms
> otherwise.
>
> Rachel
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark CRAWFORD [mailto:mcrawfor@lmi.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:10 PM
> > To: rawlins@metronet.com; lms@wwnet.com
> > Cc: sutor@us.ibm.com; anders.grangard@edifrance.org;
> > annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com; bill.smith@sun.com;
> > dick.raman@cab-edi.net; drummond@onramp.net; duane@xmlglobal.com;
> > klaus@templar.net; plevine@telcordia.com; rachelf@ix.netcom.com;
> > raywalker@attglobal.net; scott.nieman@NorstanConsulting.com;
> > ebXML-Requirements@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re:ebXML Question re: Comments by Organizations
> >
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> >     Klaus has made it very clear that participation in
> ebXML is at the
> > individual level. It has also been said that review of the
> > ebXML technical
> > specifications is open to all ebXML participants.  As such,
> > submissions should
> > only be from individuals, not organizations - and individual
> > submissions should
> > be given equal weight.
> >
> >     As you know, organizational representation and
> > submissions has been a
> > contentious issue.  There are certain members of ebXML that
> > feel that X12 should
> > have "official" representation.  There are an equal number of
> > EWG members and
> > work groups that feel the same way.  My sense is that we
> > would do well to stay
> > with what Klaus has stated - participation is at the individual not
> > organizational level.
> >
> >     Mark
> > Mark Crawford
> > Research Fellow
> > ______
> > LMI Logistics Management Institute
> > 2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
> > (703) 917-7177   Fax (703) 917-7518
> > mcrawfor@lmi.org
> > http://www.lmi.org
> > "Opportunity is what you make of it"
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>