RE: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments (EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded

["Gilmore, Timothy" <TIMOTHY.D.GILMORE@saic.com>]

All,

Is there a time frame set for when these issues will be incorporated
into an errata or 1.1 version of the EDXL-HAVE specification. 

How about the EDXL-RM issues list?


Timothy D. Gilmore | SAIC
Test and Evaluation Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP
phone: 606.274.2063 | fax 606.274.2012
mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: gilmoret@us.saic.com  
 

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


-----Original Message-----
From:
emergency-return-1368-timothy.d.gilmore=saic.com@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:emergency-return-1368-timothy.d.gilmore=saic.com@lists.oasis-ope
n.org] On Behalf Of Rex Brooks
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL; rexb@starbourne.com;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments
(EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded

You make some good points Sukumar,

Sorry for the length of these emails. You may have missed the TC 
meeting(s) when I raised the topic of responding to the NIMS SC 
issues. When I get some time to check for it, I will send along the 
url for the meeting notes, but it was discussed in the TC.

My point with regard to the spreadsheet is that it is not something 
we have done before. I think that it is just easier to keep this new 
process clearly distinct from the previous process of tracking 
comments for the Public Reviews if these post-approval issues are 
separated.

We always have the previous Issues Lists to refer to, but once the 
post-approval comments are included, it becomes difficult for anyone 
who is not familiar with the history to understand how the issues or 
comments relate to the TC process, and that is not evident simply 
from the date. Let's remember that we keep these records for public 
transparency as much as for our own reference, and I think this 
practice just makes easier to get confused. As far as that goes, I've 
done similar things, like using a second worksheet to track meeting 
attendance and dating responses to use the spreadsheet for the 
purpose of recording meeting notes. As I understand the TC process, 
we are allowed such freedom in SCs.

I agree, putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is definitely 
non-trivial, and I thank you for that. In fact, the time and effort 
of doing that is the reason why I didn't do that myself. I preferred 
to review the submitted documents from NIMS SC at least once to get 
an idea of what process is most appropriate and form a recommendation 
to the TC, while keeping track of our discussions in our meeting 
notes.

Of course, now that these issues are in speadsheet form, there is no 
reason not to use it to keep track of our discussions, after we have 
discussed how best to conduct even this initial review in the TC.

There's actually an issue in here for the TC to consider beyond this 
specific instance. Most of our specifications deal with messaging, 
which is specifically part of the Messages and Notification SC. I 
have several times now suggested having certain tasks, such as 
developing EDXL-HAVE conducted either at the TC level or, with a new 
SC such as the CAP Profiles SC. I have previously suggested that CAP 
Next Gen be undertaken by a new SC. The reason for this has been to 
avoid confusion and to even-out the workload so that one SC is not 
overburdened. I doubt we want to become sticklers about this because 
it is the work that is important, more important than the process. 
However the process needs to be clear and help accomplish the work.

We investigated standing up task-specific groups, but, if my memory 
serves, OASIS does not support that kind of workgroup at the TC 
level. I think we are free to do that at the SC level, but if we 
don't have enough participation due to the fact that one must join an 
SC in order to participate in a task group, its a moot point.

So we need to discuss how best to conduct the next batch of 
specifications, revisions, Errata, etc.

Cheers,
Rex



At 12:00 AM -0500 3/7/09, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:
>Rex,
>
>Obviously, its a long email to respond...
>
>You are making quite a few assumptions that are not correct. I did 
>not imply that this should not be done in a group nor that 
>everything should be done in a single vote - obviously, that's 
>impractical.
>
>I am not sure I understand the logic of not compiling all the 
>comments first - we have done that as a first step for all the 
>standards and I hope we continue to follow that process.
>
>Finally, just putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is a non 
>trivial issue - my opinion is that it will be easier to have all 
>comments at one place - clearly, you can track everything since they 
>will be related and may have been discussed before. You can easily 
>track issues that were past the approval - the date column should 
>help you with it. And you can filter the column to see the open 
>issues. If you want to create a separate spreadsheet, please do so.
>
>I am happy to discuss - I was not aware that you were discussing it 
>in the SC nor recollect being mentioned in the last TC meeting. As I 
>mentioned in my email, the spreadsheet would be a starting point for 
>the discussions.
>
>Sukumar
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
>To: Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org 
><emergency@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Fri Mar 06 17:44:27 2009
>Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments 
>(EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded
>
>Hi Sukumar,
>
>We in the EM-Msg SC were going through the 28 (37 if you count the
>lettered sub issues) issues submitted by the NIMS Support Center
>after EDXL-HAVE was approved as an OASIS Standard.
>
>We were considering only those and going through them one by one
>without putting them into a spreadsheet yet so that we could make a
>recommendation to the TC on how to resolve these post-approval
>issues, e.g. an Errata or a v1.1.
>
>I'm a little confused by including these new issues with the issues
>resolved before  the approval process. I know we didn't take this
>work on as an SC, but we wanted to address them as part of addressing
>both RM and HAVE so that the NIMS Support Center folks would know
>that their concerns with both were being addressed. Obviously we did
>not know that you were compiling them into a spreadsheet or taking
>personal responsibility to propose resolutions.
>
>We should probably take this up in the TC. I would feel a lot better
>if this were done by a group rather than just one person. Also, as
>diligent and careful as you are, I think there are just too many to
>accept them as a group with some kind of single vote on all at once.
>I think each resolution needs to be processed through a group.
>
>For instance, the DOM is more than difficult to read, it is not
>sufficiently legible and needs to be redone, regardless of the fact
>that the schema is normative. To be honest, even if few of these
>issues warrants a revision, until a group has gone through them one
>by one, I won't have enough confidence to recommend either an Errata
>or v1.1.
>
>So I think we should discuss how to address these issues in the next
>TC meeting. I would appreciate it if we could have only the new open
>issues in a separate spreadsheet.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>
>At 9:59 PM +0000 3/6/09, sukumar_dwarkanath@sra.com wrote:
>>I have added the comments from NIMS SC and have reviewed it. As a
starting
>>point, I have provided a proposed resolution for each comment which we
can
>>discuss and finalize. All the comments are editorial in nature and I
think
>>can be fixed with an errata.
>>
>>   -- Sukumar Dwarkanath
>>
>>The document named EDXL HAVE Comments (EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls)
has
>>been submitted by Sukumar Dwarkanath to the OASIS Emergency Management
TC
>>document repository.
>>
>>Document Description:
>>List of comments on EDXL-HAVE
>>
>>View Document Details:
>><http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=31572>h
ttp://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=31572
>>
>>Download Document:
>><http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31572/EDXL_HAVE_Iss
uesList_v4.6.xls>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/31572
/EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls
>>
>>
>>PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email
application
>>may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and
paste
>>the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
>>
>>-OASIS Open Administration
>
>
>--
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-898-0670


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670

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