[OSGeo-Standards] [Tc] GeoServices REST API vote to restart

[Martin Daly]

Response to response to response, etc

2.1 General Remarks

"The submitting organizations of the GeoServices REST API are and have been supporters of OGC since its earliest years. They have actively contributed to many of today's OGC standards and have implemented many of them in their software products. They continue to be committed to the goals and mission of the OGC."

All very motherhood and apple pie. I'm sure that the submitters help old ladies across the road too. What does it have to do with the standard though?

"Most aspects raised in the justification comments are not new and have been discussed at length before."

The fact that the comments have been discussed before does not mean that they have been satisfactorily dealt with.

"It is also worth to point out again that the backward compatibility requirement with the existing implementations applies to the version of the candidate standard that is under vote. Once the standard has been adopted, changes will follow the OGC procedures and, for example, a future major revision could also break such backwards compatibility. However, OGC policies emphasize the importance of backwards compatibility between revisions of a standard and the careful considerations that are necessary in this process."

So backwards compatibility overrides every other consideration now, but not in the future, except that it will because of existing OGC policies? This makes no sense at all.

"As part of the SWG deliberations, the specification has been reviewed and changes have been made to remove any implementation specific artifacts."

The specification precisely, and in great detail, describes the entire functionality of a single piece of existing software. Simply deleting the company name from well-known constants does not constitute "removing implementation specific artifacts".

"They have been implemented for a range of use cases that involve non-Esri implementations."

Of the implementations listed, the following are all existing Esri partners:

Exelis

http://partners.esri.com/PartnerDetail?id=a2T70000000TNQPEA4

Interactive Instruments

http://partners.esri.com/PartnerDetail?id=a2T70000000TNWMEA4

52 North

http://52north.org/about/partners/

Voyager GIS

http://partners.esri.com/PartnerDetail?id=a2T70000000TNiAEAW

These are all already inside the Esri tent, pissing out.

2.2 Responses to justification comments

"The shape file as a data format is greatly valued by the GIS community. The geodatabase data format from Esri is also of great interest to the GIS community."

And these are relevant how?

"It is true that the specification comes out of an existing implementation. But that should in many ways be treated as a positive sign."

Please elaborate on the “many ways”.
"It is unclear why adoption of the GeoServices REST API would stifle innovation as expressed in the comment."

Because those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I quote directly from OGC Document 05-003 "Position Paper on GO-1 Specification", section 3.3 (my emphasis):

"The GO-1 specification was initially developed as part of a government software implementation for creating, displaying, editing, and storing graphic objects and features. Because the specification dictates a very unique, fine-grained implementation, it is unlikely to be supported as a standard aspect of commercial software products.  *By defining so much of the environment within which feature objects may be used, it essentially constrains future creativity and innovation*."

Those words were provided by David Arctur, on behalf of Esri. Now that the boot is on the other foot it seems that fine-grained implementations are just fine and dandy, apparently.

I would also note that the Geographic Objects Implementation Specification lists the grand total of 4 (four) implementations on the OGC Registered Products page. The somewhat related GeoAPI 3.0 Implementation Standard lists 1 (one) implementation on the same page. Impressive.

Finally, and most serious of all, the Architecture Board clarified the TC voting rules as follows:

"The TC Policies and Procedures was not entirely clear about how long the vote would remain open and what happens if additional NO votes are submitted. Therefore, the OGC Architecture Board discussed the adoption vote process and agreed to the following clarification:

Once the vote restarts, if additional NO votes are submitted but the reasons
for the NO vote have already been stated in previous NO votes, the vote
remain open. The TC Chair shall review each new NO vote and determine if the
reason for the NO vote is similar to one already submitted. However, if two
or more new NO votes provide new technical reasons for voting NO, then the
vote is suspended and the SWG shall respond to the new comments. However,
the SWG can ask that the vote to be suspended at any time."

Did the members of the Architecture Board who are also members of the SWG take part in this discussion and vote? There seems to be an obvious conflict of interest if they did, because these rules blatantly favour this SWG and all current and future SWGs over the TC voters.

If a TC voter is not satisfied with a response to their No vote, then that is just tough luck because of the way that these rules have been written. That is clearly and outrageously wrong, and anti-democratic.

It is the SWGs who should have the responsibility of convincing the TC and PC voters, not the other way around. If the process has a built-in assumption that the SWGs - and therefore the proposed standards - are correct, when it is a matter of opinion, not fact, then the process is little more than a rubber-stamping exercise of a standard that need not change in the face of No votes

Resistance is futile, it would seem.

Have a good weekend!
Martin

From: tc-bounces+martin.daly=cadcorp.com at lists.opengeospatial.org [mailto:tc-bounces+martin.daly=cadcorp.com at lists.opengeospatial.org] On Behalf Of Carl Reed
Sent: 19 April 2013 15:14
To: Technical Committee; Planning Committee
Subject: [Tc] GeoServices REST API vote to restart

Dear Members -

The GeoServices REST API SWG has reviewed the comments received during the start of the adoption vote. These comments were associated with NO votes. The SWG responses to the comments are documented in https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=53588&version=1 /

Procedurally, the vote will reopen and 1.) TC Voting members who have voted can change their vote based on the information provided in the response to the comments and 2.) TC Voting members who have not voted can vote.

The TC Policies and Procedures was not entirely clear about how long the vote would remain open and what happens if additional NO votes are submitted. Therefore, the OGC Architecture Board discussed the adoption vote process and agreed to the following clarification:

Once the vote restarts, if additional NO votes are submitted but the reasons
for the NO vote have already been stated in previous NO votes, the vote
remain open. The TC Chair shall review each new NO vote and determine if the
reason for the NO vote is similar to one already submitted. However, if two
or more new NO votes provide new technical reasons for voting NO, then the
vote is suspended and the SWG shall respond to the new comments. However,
the SWG can ask that the vote to be suspended at any time.

Or put more simply:

Vote opens
Rule 1. Two or more new NO votes with new technical reasons for NO vote, vote
suspended
Rule 2. New NO votes stating reasons provided in previous NO vote, vote continues.

Other policy considerations:

Assuming Rule 2, the vote shall remain open for the 60 day voting and IPR review period.  Due to the 2 week vote suspension, the vote close is extended 2 weeks.

Assuming Rule 2, For all non-policy related motions, a simple majority of active voting members must vote “Yes” for the motion to pass. For all policy related motions (such as the Technical Committee Policies and Procedures), a 2/3rds majority of the active voting members is required. The number of active voting members is based on the number at the start or at the end of the vote whichever is less.

Regards

Carl Reed, PhD
CTO and Executive Director Standards Program
Open Geospatial Consortium
www.opengeospatial.org<http://www.opengeospatial.org>

The OGC: Making Location Count!

---------------------

This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies.

"The important thing is not to stop questioning." -- Albert Einstein
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20130426/72421b95/attachment-0001.html>