ebbp 1/31/2005: OASIS TC Process for Committee Draft

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

As we discussed in our last meeting and in preparation on our working draft, here are the CURRENT (September 2003) requirements for Committee Draft and next step to OASIS Standard. Therefore, we could initiate our own TC review and vote for Committee Draft. I can set up in Kavi to begin this process.


Standards approval process: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#standards_approval
==========================================================================================================================
Committee Draft requires:
a. 2/3 total TC membership voting to approve and no more than 1/4 voting to disapprove
b. The minimum period allowed for electronic voting shall be seven calendar days, unless the TC specifies a longer voting period for a particular ballot.
c. Adherence to OASIS TC process and IPR policy guidelines (related to copyright, format, etc).

Start to move to OASIS Standard requires:
a. Once successful as a Committee Draft, simple majority required to vote to submit to OASIS membership for review and approval.
b. If substantial comments received and the substance of the document changes, re-review required.
c. After the conclusion of the review and final changes to the document, the TC must re-approve the work as a Committee Draft before submitting it to OASIS.
d. Minimum set of the following information:

   1.

A formal specification that is a valid member of its type, together with appropriate documentation for the specification, both of which
must be written using approved OASIS templates;

   2.

A clear English-language summary of the specification;

   3.

A statement regarding the relationship of this specification to similar work of other OASIS TCs or other standards developing
organizations;

   4.

Certification by at least three OASIS member organizations that they are successfully using the specification consistently with the
OASIS IPR Policy;

   5.

An account of each of the comments/issues raised during the public review period, along with its resolution;

   6.

An account of and results of the voting to approve the approve the specification as a Committee Draft;

   7.

An account of or pointer to votes and comments received in any earlier attempts to standardize substantially the same specification,
together with the originating TC's response to each comment;

   8.

A pointer to the publicly visible comments archive for the originating TC;

   9.

A statement from the chair of the TC certifying that all members of the TC have been provided with a copy of the OASIS IPR Policy; and

  10.

Optionally, a pointer to any minority reports submitted by one or more TC members who did not vote in favor of approving the Committee
Draft, or certification by the chair that no minority reports exist.

More will be provided on the approval process as OASIS standard as we step through this. Thanks.

==========================================================================================================================
The new TC process is a bit different such as:

    *

Membership types have changed.

    *

Names of specifications and steps are also changing, i.e....

          o

Working Draft

          o

Committee Draft (*) Majority affirmative vote acceptable.

          o

Review Draft

          o

Committee Specification

          o

OASIS Standard

    *

Voting requirements also change. (*)

There are other differences but this is enough for now. Draft from 7 October 2004 for new TC process (a) and executive summary
(b) can be found at:
(a)
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/members-only/download.php/9623/TC%20Process%2020041007.pdf. 
(b)
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/members-only/download.php/9621/Process%20revision%20summary.pdf

Thanks.