Re: [soa-rm] Proposed Role Descriptions for SOA-RM Editors

[Thomas Erl <terl@serviceorientation.org>]

Matt,

A hierarchy is not being proposed, only a balanced separation of tasks. The 
term "chief editor" was only mentioned because that was the term used during 
our conference call. The titles or role classifications are irrelevant. All 
those that contribute authoring and editing time should simply be considered 
and listed as "Editors" or something comparable.

Regardless of the title, the person who would be responsible for 
coordinating and compiling the efforts of other editors would have no 
authority outside of the ability to make revisions to contributions in order 
to ensure consistency.

Thomas

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <mattm@adobe.com>
To: "Thomas Erl" <terl@serviceorientation.org>
Cc: <soa-rm@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: [soa-rm] Proposed Role Descriptions for SOA-RM Editors


> Thomas,
>
> I am personally not in favor of having a chief editor, as I feel it 
> bestows an unfair title upon one individual of many who are working on the 
> document.  The chief editor would be seen from the outside as being 
> somehow more authoritative than other editors.
>
> In fact, I am not in favor of having multiple "editors".  I am, however, 
> all for having multiple "authors".
>
> -Matt
>
> On 22-Mar-05, at 11:08 PM, Thomas Erl wrote:
>
>> It's encouraging that we have six or seven individuals willing to
>> participate as editors. Being one of them, I'm looking forward to working
>> with you all. However, I am concerned that without a system in place for
>> coordinating individual efforts, we may waste time and risk confusion 
>> while
>> trying to keep everything in alignment.
>>
>> Our goal should always be for our collective work to facilitate the TC
>> membership and the evolution of the reference model. I therefore agree 
>> that
>> we should designate a chief editor to assume ultimate responsibility for 
>> the
>> on-going quality of the reference model document and to oversee the 
>> overall
>> collaborative process. I also believe that we should clearly define the
>> relationships and boundaries between those that assume the role of 
>> "Editor"
>> and the designated "Chief Editor".
>>
>> I've had some experience in this area, so to get things started, I've
>> written up proposed role descriptions. Hopefully they will be helpful in
>> getting us organized. Your feedback is welcome.
>>
>> Editors
>> - Are each assigned the responsibility of maintaining a distinct and
>> meaningful portion of the reference model.
>> - Must be diligent in keeping their respective content areas current and
>> representative of contributions accepted by the TC as a whole.
>> - Maintain lists of outstanding issues specific to their content areas.
>> - Should proof and copyedit their own work as much as possible so as to
>> minimize the workload of the Chief Editor.
>>
>> Chief Editor
>> - Ensures that the reference model document is maintained in compliance 
>> with
>> existing OASIS documentation standards and any further conventions agreed
>> upon by the TC.
>> - Ensures that the predefined scope of the reference model is not 
>> exceeded.
>> (Candidate items raised by the TC beyond the scope of the reference model
>> should be maintained on a separate list until it is decided by the TC 
>> that
>> these items fall within or outside the scope.)
>> - Ensures that submissions from individual Editors are consistent in 
>> writing
>> style, tone, terminology, and structure. (Chief Editors can either revise
>> submissions or mark them up and then request that Editors perform the
>> revisions. For the sake of expediency, I recommend the former approach as
>> long as revisions are returned to individual Editors in a timely manner.)
>> - Maintains a list of outstanding issues that apply to the document as a
>> whole or have not yet been classified, and delegates issues to Editors 
>> when
>> appropriate.
>> - Maintains a parent-level outline of the reference model document.
>> - Is responsible for version control of the reference model document and 
>> for
>> publishing revisions to the OASIS site.
>>
>> Ideally, the Chief Editor would also be the one responsible for reading
>> through position papers and other documents submitted by members to 
>> ensure
>> that:
>> - redundant content is filtered
>> - content outside of the reference model scope is separated
>> - relevant content is brought forward for consideration by the TC
>>
>> Because we have a sufficient amount of volunteers, I would suggest that 
>> we
>> consider balancing the workload by limiting the duties of the Chief 
>> Editor
>> to quality control and facilitation. This means that only individual 
>> Editors
>> author and edit the sub-documents that comprise the reference model
>> document. The Chief Editor is not actually assigned a separate part of 
>> the
>> document, but instead governs the process of unifying sub-documents into 
>> the
>> master reference model document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Thomas Erl
>>
>> P.S.
>> Also of interest, from the OASIS TC Guidelines:
>> "The TC Editor is the person who maintains the specification document(s) 
>> for
>> the TC. The editor writes drafts, updates the drafts with input from the 
>> TC
>> members, and makes the drafts available to TC members and to the public 
>> by
>> posting them on the TC mail list and/or giving them to the webmaster to 
>> post
>> on the web page. The editor should keep an ongoing list of open issues,
>> bugs, comments, etc. and their resolution."
>>
>>
>