Re: [xri] Checklist for Committee Specification Ballot

[Will Norris <willnorris@google.com>]

Mary,

One typo... on the form for the Committee Specification request, under "Specification Title" it states (emphasis mine):

> Please enter the name of the specification that is being submitted for public review.

And one question... Under the "Approval Link" of that same form, it states (emphasis yours):

> If the specification was revised since the last public review, this must include approval of new CD as well as agreement that no substantives changes were made.

What constitutes "agreement that no substantive changes were made"?  Do we include that language in the vote for the new CD?  Should that be a separate vote?  Is something less formal sufficient?

Thanks,

will

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:

Eran, Will, et al:

As it happens, Mary McRae sent out the following message to the TC Chairs list today which includes a form with a checklist of everything required for a Committee Specification ballot.

Eran and Will: you should look over the checklist and make sure we have everything for XRD 1.0.

We'll go over any outstanding questions on the TC telecon on Thursday.

Thanks,

=Drummond

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Date: Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Subject: [chairs] Submission of TC Admin Requests for Public Reviews and Committee Specification Ballots
To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org


To all TC Chairs / Secretaries:

In an effort to continually improve the level of service provided to our TCs and to facilitate the process for submitting requests for Public Reviews and Committee Specification Ballots, we are now requesting that all requests be submitted through the forms located at:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCAdminRequests.html

This page is also linked from the main templates page at http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates (the source for all things related to spec production), should you forget its location.

The forms accomplish several goals:
1. They help to ensure that requests are complete and accurate - the form will not send if the required fields aren't completed.
That means you will no longer need to remember exactly what pieces of information are required for each type of request; they are explicitly identified on the form.

2. They ensure that requests are received by automatically creating an issue in JIRA.
You won't be dependent on your email reaching my inbox, getting overlooked, or trapped in a spam filter. You will be able to see the issue in JIRA and follow its progress.

3. They help to ensure that all required assets are provided - a single zip containing the specification plus all related components must be uploaded.
To eliminate wasted time spent searching for all of the necessary files and inadvertently accessing the wrong versions, a single zip file must be prepared that contains all of the relevant pieces and uploaded via the form interface. Again, the form lists all of necessary files for inclusion.

4. They ensure that the TC is notified when the submission is made - a copy of the request will be sent to the TC email address.
Rather than wonder if your submission was received, or when it was sent, a copy of the request will be sent to the TC email address provided on the form and will be used for all further communication with regard to the request.

You will see two boxes for optional information: abstract and TC description. Reviewers often ask for a brief description (not more than a few sentences) of the specification to included as part of the review notice. While in some cases the abstract in the specification itself may be perfect, most often it is either too long, too short, too vague or too detailed to be appropriate for inclusion in the email message.

Similarly, reviewers may be interested in the current status of the TC - new work under consideration, other specifications in progress, etc. If you would like to include such information, or provide any other information to the reviewers, this is the place to enter it.

Only those items marked with an asterisk are required.


Any requests already submitted are in the queue; all new requests should be submitted via the forms. And please remember, only one specification per submission request.

As always, I'd love your feedback and suggestions for further improvements, or if you have any difficulties with the forms.

Regards,

Mary (and Kim)