Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Draft Interoperability and ConformanceTC formation proposal (0.2)

[Shawn <sgrover@open2space.com>]

comments inline...

robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:
> The phrase I used was "OASIS InterOp demos", not just "demos".  OASIS 
> InterOp demos are something very specific and well documented at (of all 
> places) the OASIS InterOp Demo policy page:  
> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/interop_demo_policy.php

looking at that policy document, an InterOp demo is basically a show and 
tell of what the TC is doing.  It is not mandatory for a TC to do such a 
demo, but it is intended to promote adoption/usage of the hosting TC's 
work.  So my question then is "how does an OASIS InterOp Demo fit into 
the charter of a TC?"

In my eyes, our charter is no place to be planning such an event - 
that's after the fact, after we have something to show.  But it has 
nothing to do the the charter that I can see.

> You cannot read the charter effectively absent a knowledge of how OASIS 
> runs and the terminology OASIS uses for describing its own processes.  The 
> confusion I've seen so far is from people trying to substitute their own 

I don't see how this response is intended to encourage community 
involvement.  Sure, there are rules and regs.  But if you ask for the 
community to comment, you can't expect ALL of them to know ALL the 
rules... :)  One would hope the meaning of the ideas expressed are 
applied (where applicable), if not the exact wording.  But this 
statement suggests the public input isn't taken seriously - unless it is 
from another Oasis member who knows the rules.  Just Saying.. :)

> meanings for things like "scope" or "InterOp demo" that are already 
> defined by OASIS.  This will not work.  You cannot bring your own lexicon. 
>  To expect otherwise is like thinking you can write or evaluate a new 
> Constitutional Amendment without knowing what is already in the 
> Constitution.

I agree that the formation of the charter needs to be within the 
processes of OASIS (who happen to be the governing body).  My comments 
are intended to make sure this is happening, help improve the document 
overall, and/or highlight holes in my knowledge.

That said, When I look at the OASIS Technical Committees Process 
document - 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-06-19.php#formation 
-(which btw has changed since this List was initiated), it has this for 
scope:

"(1)(c) The scope of the work of the TC, which must be germane to the 
mission of OASIS, and which includes a definition of what is and what is 
not the work of the TC, and how it can be determined when the work of 
the TC has been completed. The scope may reference a specific 
contribution of existing work as a starting point, but other 
contributions may be made by TC Members on or after the first meeting of 
the TC. Such other contributions shall be considered by the TC Members 
on an equal basis to improve the original starting point contribution."

Taking some text from Rob's draft under his section 1c Scope of Work:

"3. To select a corpus of ODF interoperability test documents, such 
documents to be created the OIC TC, or received as member or public 
contributions;  To publish the ODF interoperability test corpus and 
promote its use in interoperability workshops and similar events;
4. To define profiles of ODF which will increase interoperability among 
implementations in the same vertical domain, for example, ODF/A for 
archiving;
5. To define profiles of ODF which will increase interoperability among 
implementations in the same horizontal domain, for example ODF Mobile 
for pervasive devices, or ODF Web for browser-based editors.
6. To provide feedback, where necessary, to the ODF TC on changes to ODF 
that might improve interoperability;"

This to me is defining HOW the work is to be done, and WHAT what 
specific work will take place.  I submit that this sort of text probably 
is better suited under the list of deliverables.

Instead, I think a scope of work might be something like "This TC will 
analyze the ODF standard to produce documents, procedures, and 
definitions with the goal of improving conformance and interoperability 
of ODF based applications.  The TC will be an ongoing endeavor, 
producing revisions of it's documents as the ODF standard evolves." 
Something more broad that indicates what we are here for, but not how we 
will do it.

> If you are looking for how a TC works, you will not find it in the 
> charter.  That is in the OASIS TC Process definition here: 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php

Agreed.  The charter should not define HOW the TC goes about it's 
business.  But if I want to know what a TC is "for", the charter is 
likely the first place I'd look.  (if not just asking a member... :) )

> But I do appreciate the desire to have something "In plain English" to 
> attract participation to the TC.  Once we have the TC formally proposed 
> and OASIS has issued a Call for Participation, we can get attention drawn 
> to it in several ways.  OASIS is good at helping promote new TC's.  They 
> know what to do.

I have seen no requirements that say the charter cannot be in plain 
English.  I would suggest that if you need a document to explain what 
the charter means, then there is too much room for confusion, and not a 
clear enough definition of what the TC is for.  I can think of a few 
reasons why an organization may not want a solidly defined charter, but 
most of them are political.  In my eyes, if I cannot clearly see what 
the TC is meant to do via the charter (which IS the defining document, 
isn't it?) then I think I would walk away knowing that I would have a 
hard time knowing if I'm within the policies or not, or even within the 
intent of the TC....

> The first meeting would be a teleconference.  So we're really talking 
> about who pays for the toll-free phone lines for that first call.  If 
> anyone wants to make a conspiracy theory about that, then it is a slow day 
> for conspiracy nuts.

Agreed.  But knowingly setting ourselves up for accusations of hidden 
agendas, politics, etc, isn't good for the TC either.

Side note for Rob:  while my comments may seem confrontational, I mean 
no disrespect for your efforts Rob.  Rather, I want to see the best 
document come forth - with community input.  You are in a rough 
position. I don't usually like to make life tough for the leaders, but 
we were asked to participate and comment on how best to get the TC 
going.  That's all I'm doing.. :)

My thoughts.

Shawn