>Molly,
>
>I'm sorry for failing to review the OSHCA 2.0 release document sooner
>in the quickly moving process that is underway. Let's just replace
>all of my suggestions with the single observation that the Protem
>Committee has assigned itself tremendous authority and is ramming
>things through on such a rapid timeline that those of us in the rank
>and file are being asked to waive all concerns so as not to derail
>the process.
>
Will, the community gave a similar mandate end of 2002, in fact a much
stronger one for OSHCA to be incorporated and one of the reasons given
by one of the iBOD members is that there was no time frame for OSHCA's
incorporation even after one year had passed. I took a different
approach when I offered to get OSHCA registered. I put a time frame to
it and I would like to think that whoever is interested in the processes
would monitor the list regularly for updates and respond accordingly.
I'm sorry to sound that I'm ramming things through but I need to keep to
timelines for the deliverables that I promise.
>I will make no effort to slow the process down, but I
>will observe that software developed under the same conditions is
>generally suboptimal. One of the primary benefits I enjoy from open
>source software is not that it can be assembled hastily against an
>aggressive deadline, without regard to quality, but that it is
>developed under a process that can accommodate rapid corrections and
>constant improvements to achieve a high standard of quality assurance
>and usability.
>
The analogy you gave above is, I think, inappropriate here. We're
assembling a group of interested individuals to agree to a constitution
for registering an organisation. This is not software development.
>I like the early beta version of your 2.0 OSHCA
>project, but I am disappointed in the bugginess of RC1. My
>preference is for an elastic release date combined with very high QA
>standards. Perhaps in the long drought since the demise of OSHCA
>1.0 we have become over eager to reanimate the beast.
>
Unfortunately the elasticity of the earlier attempt to register led to
the resignations of several iBOD members and OSHCA's demise (almost),
hence its resurrection. I had also made it very clear when I took the
responsibility for its registration that this is a new initiative and
not a continuation of the previous effort.
Tim had addressed your points appropriately since.
>Since I have
>no real standing in this process I will leave my observation where it
>is.
>
>
>
Will, I actually invited you to join the protem in a private e-mail but
as you're aware I did not get a reply, so I moved on and requested for
help from someone else..... There will be the democratic process of
elections after OSHCA's registration. I hope you will become a member so
that you can participate in defining OSHCA's future and not turn it into
a beast. The constitution is a living document. It will really be a
marvellous achievemnent for the protem if a sprinkling of individuals
across the globe agrees to adopt it as a start. I don't expect a
majority across the globe to agree to all of the articles. The
variations can be articulated in the chapters, subsequently.... What the
protem is doing now is just preparatory work towards getting OSHCA
registered.
Molly
>With best regards,
>
>[wr]
>
>- - - - - - - -
>
>On Apr 22, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Molly Cheah wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi Will,
>>Your suggestions below pose a dilemma for me because of the time
>>frame.
>>As you're aware, in preparation for this inaugural meeting in 2 days'
>>time, the preparatory process to arrive at an acceptable constitution
>>went through 7 draft revisions, most of the work was done by the
>>protem
>>committee and somewhere along the way, draft4 was uploaded to this
>>list
>>from 7th April announced to the list on the 8th April and made
>>available
>>to everyone for seven (7) days for their input. Procedures were
>>laid out
>>in my e-mail to the list dated April 8th when I announced the
>>upload of
>>the draft constitution. All accetable input and changes made had been
>>documented in the build status in build history and every draft is
>>available. As I said repeatedly the constitution is a living document
>>but somewhere along the line for drafting it, there has to be a cutoff
>>point for acceptance of input. Can I suggest that these be proposed
>>for
>>amendments after OSHCA's registration i.e. during subsequent AGMs?
>>
>>Molly
>>
>>
SPONSORED LINKS
| Software distribution | Salon software | Medical software |
| Software association | Software jewelry | Software deployment |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "openhealth" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
