[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Resend: Minutes of Thursday 6 January, 2000
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the OASIS PROCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 2000-01-06 The PAC met from 5:00-6:50 pm EST Thursday 6 January, 2000. Chaired by: Jon Bosak (bosak@eng.sun.com) Present were: Jon Bosak (bosak@eng.sun.com) Terry Allen (tallen@sonic.net) Robin Cover (robin@isogen.com) Eduardo Gutentag (eduardo@eng.sun.com) Deborah Lapeyre (dalapeyre@pop.mindspring.com) Mary McRae (sgmlgeek@top.monad.net) Tommie Usdin (btusdin@mulberrytech.com) The minutes were read and amended; Deborah Lapeyre as Secretary agreed to redo the initial minutes and redistribute. Resolutions 1. Meeting Schedule a. Meeting will 1 hour earlier for the next 10 weeks; meetings will be held from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm Pacific (4:00 pm to 6:00 pm EST) b. On March 16, 2000, the schedule will revert to 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm Pacific (5:00 pm to 7:00 pm EST) c. The next three meeting dates will be: 20 Jan 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm (EST) 3 Feb 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm (EST) 17 Feb 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm (EST) d. The timing and length of the face-to-face meeting the week of March 2 will be reconsidered at the next meeting. AYE 7 NAY 0 2. The major business of the meeting was the continuing refinement and revision of the OASIS technical committee procedures requirements document. The latest draft is appended to these minutes as Attachment 2. 3. Resolved to adjourn until the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on Thursday, 2000.01.20 (4-6 pm EST) Meeting adjourned 6:50 pm EST. Deborah A. Lapeyre Secretary, OASIS Process Advisory Committee ================================================================== Attachment I Action Items 1. Mary McRae - will obtain schedules for XTech'2000 and any associated OASIS meetings, as input to the PAC meeting schedule during the week February 8 - March 3, 2. John Bosak - will arrange the altered meeting times with the telephone company ================================================================== Attachment II RQ Draft in Progress RQ 1. Use cases The set of use cases to be employed in the OASIS process consists of all the cases that can be generated by each possible combination of "operation," "origination," "organizational scope," and "individual participation" below. With possibly a few anomalous exceptions, these cases are typical of those that will have to be handled by the OASIS process. The set is not intended to exhaust all the possibilities but rather to indicate the minimum set of cases that the system must be able to handle. OPERATION Note that a revision to a specification can be considered a specification. 1. Create a specification proposal (including requirements, if any) 2. Create a draft specification 3. Advance a draft specification to the status of a specification 4. Take over the creation of one or more draft specifications 5. Harmonize overlapping specifications, some of which may be complete and some of which may be in progress, by creating a specification or suite of specifications 6. Evaluate a specification 7. Maintain a specification 8. Advance a specification to the status of a standard 9. Maintain a standard ORIGINATION a. Requested by a vote of the OASIS membership b. Requested by OASIS members as individuals c. Requested by an OASIS committee d. Requested by the OASIS board e. Requested by some individual or group outside OASIS [Open question: whether a request that in fact comes from outside OASIS is required to be submitted in the form of a request by one or more OASIS members.] SPONSORSHIP a. OASIS b. Collaborative [Open question: whether OASIS standardization of a collaborative effort requires a formal vote of all the collaborating organizations.] PARTICIPATION a. OASIS members b. Members of an organization that is collaborating with OASIS c. Invited experts ************* continue reading here 2000.01.20 ************** RQ 2. Resource/funding model The creation of OASIS technical committees should not be limited by the resources of OASIS as a corporation. This appears to imply that the incremental cost of creating a TC should, on average, not exceed the incremental revenue gained through the addition of members as a direct or indirect result of creating the TC. RQ 3. Process modules/phases The number and variety of possible use cases will require multiple entry points into the process, so that (for example) the same procedure for standardizing a specification can be applied regardless of whether the specification has been developed by an OASIS TC or by some outside organization requesting OASIS standardization status. The only way we can see to accommodate this requirement is to divide the process into clearly defined modules with specified inputs and outputs. This "pipelining" architecture can yield beneficial side effects. 1. Modular process phases make it possible to assign people with different skills and interests to different parts of the process. In particular, the separation of charter and work phases allows problems to be stated by business experts and solutions to be designed by technology experts. 2. Transitions between process phases provide checkpoints at which projects can be reported upon and reassessed, thus discouraging the continuation of failed projects from simple inertia. RQ 4. Outcomes The deliverables of a TC include 1. A report to the agency that created the TC 2. A technical specification (unless the committee fails, in which case its only deliverable is a report) [Open question: What is the vote required for the committee to approve a spec (as opposed to a working draft)?] Elevation of a specification to the status of an OASIS standard is an action separate from the approval of a specification by a TC. A vote to approve a specification is a vote of the individual members of the TC, whereas a vote to standardize a specification is a vote of the members of OASIS. (The voting members of OASIS are typically organizations rather than individuals.) The nomenclature used for specifications and standards is illustrated by the following examples, which assume the existence of a fictional OASIS Footware TC. Note that Draft Standards may originate outside OASIS. Deliverables of the committee on its own authority: The Shoe Draft Specification of the OASIS Footware TC The Boot Draft Specification of the OASIS Footware TC The Shoe Specification of the OASIS Footware TC The Boot Specification of the OASIS Footware TC Results of later actions by OASIS as a whole (assuming for purposes of illustration that OASIS rejects Boot and accepts Shoe): The Rejected Boot Specification of the OASIS Footware TC The OASIS Shoe Draft Standard The OASIS Shoe Standard ================================================================== End document Deborah A. Lapeyre Secretary, OASIS Process Advisory Committee ====================================================================== Deborah Aleyne Lapeyre mailto:dalapeyre@mulberrytech.com Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9633 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ====================================================================== ====================================================================== Deborah Aleyne Lapeyre mailto:dalapeyre@mulberrytech.com Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com 17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9633 Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631 Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML ======================================================================
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC