[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Minutes of Wednesday May 30, 2001
==================================================================
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING of the
OASIS PROCESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, 2001-05-30
The PAC met from 2:00 pm - 3:00 pm EST Wednesday 30 May, 2001.
Chaired by:
Jon Bosak (bosak@eng.sun.com)
Voting Members Present:
Karl Best (karl.best@oasis-open.org)
Jon Bosak (bosak@eng.sun.com)
Robin Cover (robin@isogen.com)
Eduardo Gutentag (eduardo@eng.sun.com)
G. Ken Holman <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com>
Deborah Lapeyre (dalapeyre@mulberrytech.com)
Tommie Usdin (btusdin@mulberrytech.com)
Lauren Wood (lauren@sqwest.bc.ca)
Proceedings
The business of the meeting was a continuation of the
discussion from last meeting of the OASIS TACs request for
modifications in the current TC procedure and for creation of a new
process for formal, coordinated OASIS initiatives ("Portfolios") to
differentiate such TCS from uncontrolled Member Initiatives.
With no formal resolutions taken, the members at this meeting
agreed to the following:
1) The committee empowered Jon Bosak to send a letter of intent to
the OASIS board informing them of this committee's intent to:
a) Meet as scheduled 13 June 2001
b) Confine our discussion at that meeting to:
- Patches (basically bug fixes) in the existing TC process
- Recommendations concerning formation of a successor committee
to develop the formal, portfolio, OASIS-backed TC process
- Any open issues we pass to the successor committee
c) Dissolve this committee at the close of that meeting, so that a
successor committee can be formed
2) At the next meeting, the agenda for discussing potential alternations to
the current TC process will be based on Karl Best's 20 summary points
distributed in email (Wed, 25 Apr 2001) and attached below.
3) The time of the next meeting was changed to:
10:00am-12:00pm Pacific, 13 June 2001.
Meeting adjourned 3:00 pm EST.
Deborah A. Lapeyre
Secretary, OASIS Process Advisory Committee
==================================================================
Attachment I Action Items
1. Jon Bosak - will draft and send a letter of PAC intent to the
OASIS board before the next board meeting, 6 June 2001.
==================================================================
Attachment II Karl Best's 20 Summary Points
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:50:44 -0400
From: Karl Best <karl.best@oasis-open.org>
Subject: Karl's suggested TC process changes
To: workprocess@lists.oasis-open.org
PAC:
As I mentioned on the PAC call of 4/18, I've been accumulating suggestions
for changes to the TC process. Here are my suggested changes. I hope that
most of these will be simple "sure, why not?" clarifications, though some
may require some discussion.
These are all serious suggestions, based either on my experience
administering the process and setting up TCs since last summer or on the
needs of OASIS. None of these have to do with the proposed bi-level TC
scheme but apply to the process that we have been using since last summer.
TC Formation
============
1. Add to section 3 that the proposed charter should
- Identify what other groups/committees inside and outside of OASIS are
doing similar work, and specify what coordination/liaison could or will be
done with those other groups. (This is the same as Robin's suggestion of
4/23)
- Specify whether conformance testing will be done by this TC or by
another group.
Note that this is not requiring that the TC do the coordination or
conformance work, just that it must be identified. If the TC does not feel
it is necessary or that the TC does not have the resources to do the work
they can say so, but they must specify this. At the very least this would be
an intellectual exercise, but could also go a long way towards increasing
the quality of OASIS technical work.
2. Add to section 4 that the charter and chair of the TC must be ratified by
the members at the first meeting. This would allow tweaking the charter if
things have changed over the 45 days since the announcement, another group
wants to join in, etc. and would also allow for a different chair if
participants like the charter but not necessarily the person who suggested
it. (However, this admittedly could also introduce problems if a large
number of people wanted to hijack the TC; let's discuss this.)
3. Add to section 3 that the three PEOTCPs that create a TC must be from
different companies. This would prevent a single company from starting a TC.
TC Membership
=============
4. Add in section 4 that a person must be a PEOTCP at the time of notifying
the chair of the person's intent to join (i.e. 15 days before first
meeting). This is to avoid last-minute membership scrambles.
5. Currently, in section 6, to retain TC membership a person must attend two
out of three meetings. What if a person misses two in a row, gets a warning,
then attends the third meeting so he's back in, but then misses the fourth?
He's now attended only one out of four meetings. (This is the case mentioned
by Eve on 3/20 and forwarded by Jon on 4/20.)
6. In sections 5, 6, and 7, how does a person retain TC membership when
switching employment? How long can the person take to find a new job, and
can they continue to participate while unemployed? (This is a case mentioned
by Lauren on 1/15.)
7. In section 5 add the requirement that a prospective TC member participate
in the TC as an observer according to the existing "two out of three"
attendance rules during the probationary period. This would make sure that
the new member is committed and educated before being allowed to vote.
8. We need to decide whether to allow invited experts to participate in TCs,
and if allowed define how they are invited and what their rights in the TC
are.
9. What happens when membership in a TC drops below three people? Is a
one-person TC still a TC? How many people are required to be in the TC when
it completes its work and votes to create a Committee Specification?
Discussion Lists
================
10. Add to section 2 that, while a discussion list is started by PEOTCPs,
subscribers to the discussion lists do not need to be PEOTCPs. This would
allow prospective OASIS members to participate in the discussion to see if
they are interested in joining OASIS for the purpose of participating in the
TC.
Standards Process
=================
11. Is OASIS justified in calling the results of our process a "standard",
as we are not a de juere standards organization?
12. Define how existing/completed work can be submitted to OASIS to become
an OASIS Standard without having to go through a TC. (I suggest that we
simply require three PEOTCPs to submit the work and certify three
implementations on the existing quarterly schedule. This would save the
effort of setting up a TC and the 45 days wait to hold the first TC
meeting.)
13. Should we do anything different for committee work that is not designed
to be submitted to membership for creation as an OASIS Standard? (e.g.
conformance test suites are considered tools, not specs, so are not
submitted to become OASIS Standards.) Should the committee work product
still be reviewed by membership?
14. Add that member organizations voting on a proposed OASIS spec must be
members at the time the proposal is submitted to the membership, i.e. the
start of the evaluation period. The 10% required for voting should be based
on the number of member organizations at the start of the evaluation period.
This is to prevent the vote from getting invalidated if we get a bunch of
new members during a ballot period.
15. Add to the checklist that the committee's submission must include a
statement regarding IPR compliance. Also, the submitted committee
specification doc must include the OASIS copyright statement that is in the
IPR.
General/Other
=============
16. In section 9 the mail list requirements aren't very workable: there are
two lists (discuss and comment) used to satisfy three groups of people (TC
members, OASIS members, and the public). The comment lists are required to
exist but are unused. I suggest that the TC process should simply describe
the effect (e.g. "allow outsiders to post comments to the discussion list")
without describing the method to accomplish the goal; let the list
administrator figure out how best to do it. For example, the discussion list
could simply be opened to postings from the public; subscriptions would
still be restricted to members. This would do away with the need for a
separate comment list.
17. I suggest a shorter amount of time to kill an inactive TC. Currently in
section 11 an inactive TC can only be killed at the beginning of the year
after a full year without a meeting; this could be 12-24 months of
inactivity before the TC can be killed. I suggest that six to nine months of
inactivity (no meetings, no substantive discussion) would be better. It's
publicly embarrassing to OASIS to have to publicize inactive TCs, and extra
effort is required for OASIS to maintain the TC on our lists, etc.
18. The TC Process does not define how to set up subcommittees of the TC,
and doesn't say anything about them at all other than mentioning them as
part of the Joint Committee discussion. The Process should provide
guidelines/rules for their creation and operation.
19. The TC Process says little or nothing about how a TC operates once it
has been set up, other than specifying RRO for the conducting of business.
Should more be specified? or is a non-normative guidelines document
sufficient?
20. I suggest that throughout the process document we drop the acronym
"PEOTCP" and simply use the phrase "eligible person" instead. This would
make the process document easier to read.
</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org
=================================================================
==================================================================
Submitted by Debbie Lapeyre, 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
======================================================================
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC