Re: [ubl] Possible subcommittee reorganization

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

in preparation for the discussion can i also suggest we entertain the 
idea that SCs are established to reflect deliverables.

to be consistent and exploit our advantages i would hope we can consider 
having SCs for things like Deployment, UBL 1.1, Localization and 
Extension rather than fall back to the old NDR, LCSC groups.  This also 
gives us one clear benefit - mosts SC will have a lifetime and a 
deliverable to achieve in that timeframe, rather than exist into perpetuity.

i think we have learned over 3 years that any UBL deliverables require a 
meld of various skills and segregation on this basis of skill sets leads 
to isolation.

jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:

>Hello UBL TC,
>
>In Tuesday morning's TC plenary in Santa Clara, we discussed our
>experience so far with the suspension of most of our UBL
>subcommittees following the May 2004 meeting in Hong Kong.  I
>think it's fair to say that most of us feel that folding the SC
>work back into the TC for the last 6 months has proven a net
>benefit, but not without its downside.  Those present in the
>Tuesday discussion came to the conclusion that we might be able to
>secure the benefits of SCs while ameliorating their major
>disadvantages if we structured their relationship with the TC in
>light of lessons learned over the last three years.  I've
>scheduled a further discussion of this for our Thursday afternoon
>plenary call (Friday morning in Asia); please review the
>outcomes of our Tuesday meeting below and be ready to contribute
>comments by mail or join us for the discussion on Thursday.
>
>Jon
>
>==================================================================
>
>Advantages of standing SCs
>
>   Persistent mail archive and document archive
>
>   Web page provides one-stop access to the work of the SC
>
>   Tribal group dynamic leads to more investment in work,
>   increasing focus and participation
>
>   Possibly better fit with current OASIS direction with regard to
>   form of organization
>
>   Attractive working environment for people interested in a
>   particular technical aspect but unwilling to participate in the
>   policy and coordination work of the TC or unavailable for TC
>   meetings (and the proposed revision to the OASIS TC process
>   finally gives us officially recognized membership categories
>   that allow us to have voting members of SCs who are not voting
>   members of the TC)
>
>   More direct and visible responsibility for the maintenance of
>   works in progress
>
>   Formal role for co-chairs, making consistent co-chair
>   participation and travel easier to justify to member management
>
>   Less dependence on TC for direct management of work teams
>
>Disadvantages of standing SCs
>
>   Much more overhead (though it's an open question how much of
>   this would be required no matter how the group was structured
>   if it were to be managed properly)
>
>   Tribal group dynamic leads to territoriality and lack of
>   communication with other SCs
>
>   Possible failure of the TC to take responsibility for important
>   recommendations of SCs, allowing decisions of the SCs to stand
>   without sufficient review or buy-in by the larger group
>
>Key question: Is it possible to structure the TC and its
>subcommittees in a way that achieves the advantages of standing
>SCs while overcoming the disadvantages?
>
>==================================================================
>
>Possible way to overcome SC disadvantages
>
> - The TC takes more responsibility for SC functioning, defining
>   work lists and schedules for the SCs
>
> - The TC may form ad hoc work teams whose management is assigned
>   to given SCs
>
> - SC schedules feature frequent milestones (monthly under the
>   plan being considered)
>
> - SCs mail one-paragraph summaries to the TC each week, and the
>   TC agenda features a standing slot for optional commentary upon
>   or discussion of that week's SC work
>
> - Deliverables of SCs are recommendations to the TC, not
>   decisions made independently of the TC
>
> - The ideal model is one in which each SC brings a question to
>   the TC every month along with enough information and documented
>   positions to enable the TC to make a decision
>
>==================================================================
>
>Possible SCs; note that these are intended to reflect the physical
>division of participants in f2f meetings:
>
>   DSC (Deployment SC)
>
>      Scope: Education, documentation, interoperability, human
>      interface (including input and output mappings)
>
>      Document responsibility (continuing development, 1.0 issues
>      list, 1.0 errata list, white papers, 1.1 issues list):
>      Interface specs, FAQ, educational materials, implementation
>      guides, programming aids
>
>   BSC (Business SC)
>
>      Scope: Data models and spreadsheets
>
>      Document responsibility (continuing development, 1.0 issues
>      list, 1.0 errata list, white papers, 1.1 issues list):
>      Spreadsheets, EDIFIX data model
>
>   XSC (XML SC)
>
>      Scope: Schemas, code lists, extension methodology
>
>      Document responsibility (continuing development, 1.0 issues
>      list, 1.0 errata list, white papers, 1.1 issues list): NDR,
>      Code List spec, Customization Guidelines
>
>   LSCs
>
>      Scope: Translation, regional deployment, regional
>      requirements
>
>      Document responsibility (continuing development, issues
>      lists, errata): Translated documentation and data dictionary
>
>==================================================================
>
>Weekly TC meeting schedule under this plan
>
>   Atlantic TC calls take place in the usual slot, shifted one
>   hour to 16h00-18h00 UTC/GMT for the winter in order to maintain
>   08h00-10h00 in San Francisco and 16h00-18h00 in London.
>
>   Pacific TC calls take place in the usual slot, 00h30-02h30
>   UTC/GMT, which in the winter will be 16h30-18h30 in San
>   Francisco while staying at 08h30-10h30 in Singapore, Hong Kong,
>   Perth, and Beijing and 09h30-11h30 in Tokyo and Seoul.
>
>   Calls are structured as follows:
>
>      First 0.5-1.0 hour: Standing TC items: Calendar, liaison
>      reports, scheduling, status reports of teams managed
>      directly by the TC (if any)
>
>      Remainder of meeting: Devoted to that month's
>      recommendations from the "subcommittee of the week" (one of
>      DSC, BSC, XSC, or LSCs), conveyed by at least one co-chair
>      of the subject SC(s) accompanied by other interested members
>      of the subject SC(s) in that time slot
>
>   Note that it will be necessary under this scheme for each SC to
>   have an Atlantic co-chair and a Pacific co-chair, or better yet
>   one chair (probably based on the U.S. west coast) who can
>   participate in both time slots.
>
>   The SCs would meet on their own different schedules once a week
>   in the usual case, or split into Atlantic and Pacific calls if
>   their members so desired.  SC timelines would be specified when
>   possible in terms of monthly milestones representing decision
>   points for the TC that align with the monthly cycle of formal
>   SC reports.
>
>==================================================================
>
>Disposition of existing ad hoc teams
>
>   Under the proposal floated above, we would make HISC a team
>   under DSC and assign management of the Code List team to the
>   XSC and management of the Tax XML and TBG17 teams to the BSC.
>
>==================================================================
>
>Gating items and risk factors
>
>   Gating item: people willing to co-chair each of DSC, BSC, and
>   XSC in such a way that each SC has at least one co-chair
>   available to cover the monthly Atlantic call and at least one
>   co-chair available to cover the monthly Pacific call.
>
>   Risk factors: failure of the TC to prepare for a decision on
>   the SC recommendation to be considered each week.
>
>==================================================================
>
>Here is what our meeting schedule for the next few weeks might
>look like if this plan is adopted:
>
>2004.11.10/11
>
>   No meetings this week; JB to formalize SC plan with straw
>   charters and worklists and submit it to the TC for discussion
>   by mail
>
>2004.11.17/18
>
>   Mavis chairs Atlantic, Tim chairs Pacific; agenda: standing
>   items; refine charters and worklists for new SCs
>
>2004.11.24/25
>
>   Mavis chairs Atlantic, Tim chairs Pacific; agenda: standing
>   items; TC triage of proposed 1.1 items from worklist
>
>2004.12.1/2
>
>   Return to usual meeting management; agenda: standing items;
>   finalization of detailed SC plan (including co-chair
>   assignments, team leads, etc.); further discussion of proposed
>   1.1 items from worklist; afterward, submission of SC plan for
>   final TC approval by mail
>
>2004.12.8/9
>
>   Agenda: standing items; SC scheduling; further discussion of
>   proposed 1.1 items from worklist; afterward, request for
>   formation of new SCs to OASIS
>
>2004.12.15/16
>
>   Agenda: standing items; final discussion of proposed 1.1 items
>   from worklist; final work schedule for 2005
>
>2004.12.22/23
>
>   No meeting
>
>2004.12.29/30
>
>   No meeting
>
>2005.01.5/6
>
>   First TC meetings under new structure
>
>==================================================================
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
phone: +618 93352228  
postal: po box 1289   fremantle    western australia 6160