[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Acknowledgments in the DITA 1.2 spec -- what should they contain?
There is nothing in the specification itself that is a certification of a company's support or endorsement of the standard. There are merely acknowledgements and participants. The list is prepared by the TC Chair and distributed to the members; the TC members can then request to have their name removed if they so wish. The TC roster is still publicly visible, so unless someone has actually withdrawn from the TC their name will still be associated with the TC and their organization will be obligated in accordance with the IPR Policy. Also, please remember that all TCs are governed by Robert's Rules. In order to move a specification forward to Committee Draft, a Full Majority is required (greater than 50% of all voting members). In order to progress to Committee Specification and submit for OASIS Standard Ballot, a 2/3 Majority is required. All eligible voters are free to post comments (either for or against) along with their vote, although they aren't required to do so. Regards, Mary Mary P McRae Director, Standards Development Technical Committee Administrator OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org web: www.oasis-open.org twitter: @fiberartisan #oasisopen phone: 1.603.232.9090 Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open. On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:02 AM, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote: > Oh goodness, no nerve touched here. I'm just trying for clear > expression. There are two distinct functions discussed here: The TC's > recognition of contributions by TC members, and the TC members' > certification of their companies' support or endorsement of the > standard. Is it sensible to overload the acknowledgements list with both > functions? (BTW, the latter works for vendors of DITA-compliant tools > much more than for DITA adopters who may be members.) > > /Bruce > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 7:35 PM >> To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Kristen James Eberlein; DITA TC >> Subject: RE: [dita] Acknowledgments in the DITA 1.2 spec -- >> what should they contain? >> >> Sorry I touched a nerve, Bruce, with my mention of >> potentially "dissident" members. >> >> I was fishing, mystified as to why Paul wanted to be left off >> the list. >> >> --Dana >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:58 PM >> To: Dana Spradley; Kristen James Eberlein; DITA TC >> Subject: RE: [dita] Acknowledgments in the DITA 1.2 spec -- >> what should they contain? >> >> You are conflating two purposes, which traditionally are >> served by distinct content elements (if I may use that term): >> >> 1. Recognition of contributions (acknowledgements). >> 2. Demonstration of support (approvals). >> >> Why isn't the second "approvals" purpose served by the >> membership roster? You propose that there might be "dissident >> members who don't want to quit the committee, but don't agree >> with signification portions of the spec". >> >> I propose that we don't need to log approvals separately from >> the membership roster as a whole unless and until such >> members step forward and say they do not want their >> membership to be construed as approval of every aspect of the spec. >> >> A more pointed approach would be a section for >> dissent/demurral in which the dissenting members could >> summarize their specific misgivings. This actually flows >> naturally from our consensus process. I have numerous times >> heard someone say "I can live with that", which I take as >> willingness to stand aside and not block a decision, while >> still retaining reservations. Those reservations are on >> record in the minutes. >> Do they need to be in the spec? >> >> And again, why do we need to log approvals, since approval is >> explicit in our consensus process? >> >> Given that consensus process, a stronger "I can't live with >> that" form of dissent is possible only if the dissenting >> member were absent when those decisions were made to which >> they object, and they didn't bring up the objections in >> subsequent meetings. How likely is that? >> >> /Bruce >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 12:59 PM >>> To: Kristen James Eberlein; DITA TC >>> Subject: RE: [dita] Acknowledgments in the DITA 1.2 spec -- what >>> should they contain? >>> >>> After looking more into this issue after today's meeting, I >> think our >>> focus may have been a little off. >>> >>> Ideally the "list of people who participated in the >> development of the >>> specification" should include all members of the TC. >>> >>> It's not a question of acknowledging the level of >> individual effort. >>> It's a question of documenting the broad industry consensus >> behind the >>> specification. >>> >>> That being said, some dissident members who don't want to quit the >>> committee, but don't agree with signification portions of the spec, >>> may want their names left off. I'm not sure if that's the >> reason why, >>> but apparently Paul doesn't want to be listed. >>> >>> To me, it seems the safest procedure would be for Don as >> chair or his >>> representative to send an email to each member individually, asking >>> them to confirm whether they want their name included, or >> not - and to >>> follow up until he gets a definite answer from each member. >>> >>> As for individual effort, if the committee wishes to establish >>> different levels of contribution - Project Manager, Author, Editor, >>> Participant, say - with clear criteria we all agree on as >> to who gets >>> included in each category - I myself would not be averse to that. >>> >>> --Dana >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:kris@eberleinconsulting.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 6:47 AM >>> To: DITA TC >>> Subject: [dita] Acknowledgments in the DITA 1.2 spec -- what should >>> they contain? >>> >>> An open review comment concerns whom we list as contributing to the >>> DITA >>> 1.2 spec. See >>> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/AboutThe3#Acknowledgements >>> for the discussion. >>> >>> Kris >>> >>> Kristen James Eberlein >>> Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting Secretary, OASIS DITA >>> Technical Committee Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee >>> www.eberleinconsulting.com >>> +1 919 682-2290; keberlein (skype) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the >> OASIS TC that >>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr >>> oups.php >>> >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the >> OASIS TC that >>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr >>> oups.php >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS >> TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your >> TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]