[OpenISO] Disagreement resolution process (was Re: Core G..)

[Norbert Bollow]

Lachlan Patrick <loki at research.canon.com.au> wrote:
> Henrik Sundberg wrote:
> > 2007/9/10, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>:
> >> ## Decision-making Processes and Requirements ##
> >> Therefore, OpenISO.org adopts the rule that all disgreements which
> >> cannot be resolved by means of Working-Group consensus processes must
> >> be addressed by means of an independent, professional evaluation of
> >> the relevant facts.
> > 
> > But who are better than the group members to do this evaluation?
> > Isn't it just like invalidating the working group and start a new one?
> 
> I agree, isn't that just passing the buck?

Quite on the contrary, I would describe this as someone (me)
volunteering to say, in US president Harry S. Truman's immortal
words, "the buck stops here", and accepting the responsibility
of organizing a way in which "disgreements which cannot be resolved
by means of Working-Group consensus processes" can "be addressed
by means of an independent, professional evaluation of the relevant
facts."

> >> ## Dispute Resolution ##
> >>
> >> Ultimately OpenISO.org intends to outsource the dispute resolution
> >> process to a legally independent "Decision Consulting Services" (DCS)
> >> business.  The DCS company will have a conditionally-exclusive
> >> contract in the sense that as long as the DCS company provides an
> >> excellent quality of service at a reasonable price
> > 
> > Aha. This might do the trick.
> 
> I disagree. This is passing the buck again. This, to me, removes the
> openness. Closed => behind closed doors, private meetings, unrecorded
> conversations. Open => on-line forums, anonymous postings allowed,
> public decision making, no private conversations.

The DCS company shouldn't, and must not be allowed to, have any
"behind closed doors, private meetings" or "unrecorded
conversations".  Rather, it can and should be contractually
required to provide maximal transparency.  I thought that I had
made that clear in the draft text which I have posted, but I
would welcome suggestions for textual changes by means of which
this can be made even clearer.

The only respect in which the proposed DCS process is "closed"
is that it is not an "everyone is welcome to join and participate
with equal rights" process.  Rather it is designed to be a process
with clear accountability.

I believe that the proposed organizational set-up with an appeals
path that leads to the disagreement being dealt with in a legally
separate organisational entity allows to maximize accountability
for the integrity of the disagreement-resolution process, because
it provides an effective remedy that can be taken in the (because
of these rules, hopefully unlikely) case that the disagreement
resolution process ever becomes corrupted.

(My first idea for organizing the disagreement-resolution process
was that it would be handled by employees of the OpenISO.org
Foundation.  The problem with that idea is that if these employees
collectively develop bad habits there'd not be much that one could
do about that besides a fork creating the "hopefully truly open
and transparent and non-corrupt international standards organization"
or whatever one would call it.  By contrast, with the proposed set-up
with two separate legal entities and a contract between them, it
would be quite feasible to force the foundation to act according to
rules in its bylaws which say that the foundation must terminate that
contract in the case that the DCS company doesn't handle things like
it should.)

> >> The start-up plan for all this is that initially, the founder of
> >> OpenISO.org takes care of the DCS function until the time
> >> requirements for this function become too great for that und
> >> OpenISO.org manages to acquire sufficient financial resources for
> >> being able to outsource this function.  At that stage the founder
> >> of OpenISO.org may name the company that becomes the initial DCS
> >> company.  In particular, at that time the OpenISO.org founder will
> >> have the right to name a privately-held company of his own for this
> >> function.
> > 
> > A good start.
> 
> I disagree. Even if contractually obliged to be open, the recourse to a
> third party muddies the waters considerably. This is a deal breaker
> for me.

Are you able to suggest fact-oriented dispute-oriented rules in an
open "everyone is welcome to join and participate with equal rights"
environment which are robust against the "Microsoft tells its 'gold
certified' partners to join" attack, and which are reliable without
requiring recourse to a third party of some kind for at least some
kinds of situations?

> >> ### Pseudonymous Participation ###
> >>
> >> Pseudonymous participation in Working-Groups is allowed.  While
> >> Working-Group participants must inform OpenISO.org of their real name,
> >> address and employer (if any),
> > 
> > Even if the participation has nothing to do with the employer?
> 
> Anonymity implies you'll get trolls and paid comments lurking in the
> mess, but that's OK if the system doesn't allow such people to vote.
> Comments should be able to be freely expressed.

Yes - what I'm proposing is to build a fact-oriented decision making
system which does not in any way take recourse to decision-making by
means of majority votes of any kind.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org