[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tag] Re: Done - Re: Ready to start next, potential candidate drafts
Sorry to go all parliamentary on this, but this is serious business and we must be careful to demonstrate that we are deliberate and thorough. Also, I am not sure what a candidate draft is a candidate for. We need to be more clear. I assume Stephen means specific working drafts that are proposed for balloting for acceptance as Committee Drafts (and as Public Review Drafts if concurrent approval for that is included in a single ballot). I'm concerned that we are rushing more than necessary to have the stages work. (If we are laboring under a strict deadline, I am not aware of it.) Let's look at this in terms of deliberate stages that are needed to get to Public Review. A. I think there are three steps: 1. Approval of the three documents as Committee Drafts. 2. Approval of the three Committee Drafts for Public Review. 3. Submission of the Public Review Drafts to the TC Administrator for conducting the 60-day public review. B. We can do (1-2) concurrently. However, for the first try, I recommend decoupling them and doing them sequentially. If we need to recycle after (1), with new proposed CDs, that re-proposal can be with a combined (1-2) ballot. I against having the working documents that go into (1) be already identified as (new) committee drafts. The update to a CD number should only happen after CD approval of a working document (including a working draft that is a revision of a previous CD). Having more than one document around that claims to be CDxx makes for craziness. We just did that at the ODF TC and it was awkward. C. I recommend that every (1) and (2) (or 1-2 together) be by electronic ballot. That means it runs a minimum of time and it might as well run to end just before the next scheduled call that is far enough into the future to satisfy the minimum. Then we can use that call to decide whether to go to the next step or make necessary comment-responsive changes and recycle. D. We need the documents to stand still during these ballots and public reviews too. We can collect comments but the only documents being commented on should be the ones under ballot or in public review. No new working/updated drafts should be posted until after the end of a ballot. Otherwise things go too random. E. KEY POINT: The electronic ballot forces us to identify who the eligible voting members are at the start of that ballot. It also causes visible notifications, reminders, and encourages the attention of folks, including those who have not maintained their Voting Member status. If we start an electronic ballot right now, it will be who the voting members were after the completion of the last TC call. I think there are only 3-5 of us, depending who was on the last two calls in 2009 as well as the January 5 call. I *think* (1) and (2) require full majority approval. Please don't take my word for it. I'm not sure we can start an electronic ballot now if we don't have a standing rule that allows for initiating them at other than a TC call. The TC Procedures need to be checked for that. If not, we can vote to start the electronic ballot on the January 19 call. If motions for electronic ballots can be done on the list in accordance with TC Procedures, we can do that and, I think, run a ballot that ends on January 18. We should do that quickly, in that case. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Green http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/201001/msg00031.html Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 07:33 To: TAG TC Subject: [tag] Re: Done - Re: Ready to start next, potential candidate drafts Following TC Admin approval of the namespace in the schema http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/201001/msg00029.html I believe we can proceed with these drafts, if the TC agrees, and treat these drafts as candidates for a ballot. Unless anyone has anything they think we still need to change. I think it was agreed at the last TC meeting we would aim to have the candidate drafts agreed by next Tuesday (12th Jan), though perhaps we can agree them sooner than that. (Not yet the ballot of course, just approval of drafts to proceed with to a ballot.) Best regards Steve --- Stephen D Green 2010/1/6 Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/201001/msg00020.html > Done... > > > guidelines: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35805/testassertionsguidel ines-draft-1-0-9-3.pdf > > model spec: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35806/testassertionsmodel- draft-1-0-1.pdf > > markup spec: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35801/testassertionmarkupl anguage-draft-1-0-2.pdf > > markup schema: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35803/testAssertionMarkupL anguage-draft-1-0-2.xsd > > markup namespace document: > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35796/testassertionmarkupl anguage-1.0-namespaceDocument.zip > > > [I hope the above could be candidates for balloting towards committee draft > and public review.] > > ---- > > markup examples updated with new, OASIS-guided namespace > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35808/ubl-ta-draft-1-0-2.x ml > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/35809/widgetTAExample-1-0- 2.xml > > > Best regards > > Steve > --- > Stephen D Green > > > > > 2010/1/6 Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>: >>> I will possibly send extracts of proposed text for your >>> consideration prior to updating the drafts so we can do this >>> all with just one iteration of the three documents. >> >> As it happens, I think I have been able to update the drafts >> without any likely further issues. I will send drafts shortly >> which I hope might be acceptable as candidates for ballot >> moving towards committee draft status, and public review. >> >> Of course, that is best case scenario: Not-so-best case is >> that there is plenty of time still before the end of the week >> for me to respond to any issues and send another set of >> drafts if need be. Please let me know soon if I should do so >> (by the weekend ideally). >> >> The markup drafts which I hope can be candidate drafts were >> uploaded earlier today - >> schema: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/201001/msg00012.html >> spec: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/201001/msg00011.html >> [There is a very minor error in the spec in that I have put the >> year 2009 (should be 2010) in the reference to the model spec. >> I hope I can correct that later.] >> >> Best regards >> >> Steve >> --- >> Stephen D Green >> >> >> >> >> 2010/1/6 Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>: >>> If we are all agreed on my last two emails >>> >>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/201001/msg00003.html >>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tag/201001/msg00004.html >>> >>> resolving the only outstanding issues, I believe >>> I can start work on the next iteration (potentially candidate drafts). >>> >>> I will possibly send extracts of proposed text for your >>> consideration prior to updating the drafts so we can do this >>> all with just one iteration of the three documents. >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> Steve >>> --- >>> Stephen D Green >>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]