RE: [wsrf] Doc management proposal

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

Different groups have different conventions. Some insist that a proposal
to vote on moving an ed draft to working draft
be advertised some fixed period before the vote. Others allow motions at
any time during meetings with no
pre-announcement. Either way the only real criteria is that the majority
of the group agrees to move an ed draft 
to a working draft, and each individual has to review the document to
reach their own conclusion of how to vote.


Martin.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Frank.Leymann@t-online.de [mailto:Frank.Leymann@t-online.de] 
>Sent: 27 July 2004 14:45
>To: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [wsrf] Doc management proposal
>
>
>Martin,
>
>are there some details about the review process within the TC 
>to move the Editor's Draft to Working Draft status?
>
>Frank
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:47:54 +0200
>Subject: [wsrf] Doc management proposal
>From: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
>To: <wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
>The issues process defines how we resolve an issue and 
>incorporate into a document (aka TC work product). Depending 
>on frequency and editing resources a new version of a document 
>may incorporate one or more resolved issues. Issuing versions 
>of documents too frequently to the whole TC can cause 
>confusion as to what is the latest valid document, esp when 
>trivial changes have been made (e.g. typos). In the issues 
>process, an individual issue is validated (similar to a unit 
>test), but sometimes one issue overlaps with another. The only 
>opportunity to check these overlaps is to review the document 
>as a whole (similar to a system test) and ask the whole TC if 
>it is an acceptable new baseline. 
>
>To support the above, I propose we have two types of drafts, 
>borrowing from many other groups within OASIS, and from W3C and WS-I.
>
>An Editors Draft, reflects work in progress in folding in 
>issues. While each folded-in issue has been validated by the 
>editor and a third party, cross issue checking may not have 
>been done, and the whole TC would not necessarily have 
>reviewed and approved (especially the editors freedom resolutions).
>
>A Working Draft (or TC Draft, pick your favourite term) 
>reflects a baseline of folded in issues and cross checked 
>dependencies, and has been accepted by the TC.
>
>A move from Editors draft to Working Draft requires a vote of the TC.
>
>The benefits of this approach are:
> 1. the editors don?t necessarily have to release to the whole 
>TC each individual update, 
>    giving them freedom to work in the background
> 2. its very clear what the current view of the TC is, the 
>latest Working Draft is the authority to work from.  3. it 
>gives the opportunity to check point the document as a whole 
>and to examine any potential cross issues 
>    editing effects.
> 4. Moving to a working draft also allows those resolutions 
>that give editors freedom ("do the right thing") 
>    to be checked by the TC as a whole.
>
>
>Eventually the TC will vote to move a Working Draft to a 
>Committee Draft, which signals 
>stronger stability to the outside world.
>
>I hope we can have a few minutes at the F2F to discuss.
>
>Cheers,
>   Martin 
>_________________________________________________________________
>Martin Chapman                                 
>Consulting Member of Technical Staff           
>Oracle                                        
>P: +353 87 687 6654                           
>e: martin.chapman@oracle.com                   
>
>
>
>