[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: TC status check BCM
Hi Jamie,
Our TC has been extremely active over the last year. In addition, we are about to release, for OASIS vote approval, our public specification for the BCM. We have above average participation in our TC, and we are currently working on two specifications, one for OASIS approval (BCM) and developing the ERP enhancement, under the BCM umbrella.
With regard to your statistics, I believe there are some inaccurate figures:
1. Number of meeting last month 0. We meet every other Monday via a DOD sponsored teleconference resource. This results in a minimum of two meeting every month (exception: Monday's that are US Federal Holidays). There has never been a month when we have not meet. Because of our teleconference meetings, our email traffic is kept to a minimum.
2. Your information on our liaison with other TC is accurate.
3. With regard to the proposed policy, the BCM group is for open standard, void on any restrictions and intellectual property right constraints. We support open engineered based standards. Anything else, discourages the advancement of competition.
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:14 AM
To: carlmattocks@checkmi.com; LUBASH, MIKE
Subject: TC status check BCM
To: Mike Lubash and Carl Mattocks, Chairs, OASIS BCM TC
We are checking in with the various OASIS TCs, through their chairs, to
verify what we know about levels of activity and progress towards
completion. This helps us administer the TC Process and provide staff
support to TCs with some degree of increased effectiveness and
predictability. A version of this inquiry is being sent to each OASIS TC
chair.
We've also reshuffled direct technical staff support to the TCs a bit, so
that each of Karl Best, Mary McRae and I have the primary responsibility
for being available to specific TCs. (That doesn't change Karl's role,
though, to announce and approve some specific events for all TCs as the "TC
Administrator" under our rules.) I'm assigned to your TC.
Here's the internal status data I have for the TC and would like to confirm
with you.
1. Metrics drawn automatically from our online TC databases as of August 1st:
Number of voting TC members: 23
Number of meetings last month: 0
Number of meetings in the last three months: 4
Number of meetings in the last six months: 11
Number of email messages last month: 10
Number of email messages in the last three months: 66
Number of email messages in the last six months: 162
Number of documents uploaded to the TC repository: 74
Please let me know if these statistics seem significantly wrong. Based on
these numbers, the TC looks moderately active and healthy.
2. Data we have from the charter & correspondence:
a. Specifications: As we have it recorded, the TC has approved one
Committee Draft, the BCM v1.0 in February 2004. (Please let me know right
away if there are other specifications that the TC has developed and
approved as "Committee Drafts" (or previously, "Committee Specifications")
under our rules.) Are there any plans to bring this approved CD to OASIS
Standard status?
b. TC Charter: The charter is our most visible and re-used statement
of the TC's work arc it shows up in the initial Call for Participation,
and the official charter pointer in your TC public web page, and is picked
up by a lot of other sources as well. Often it's the first or only text
some viewers (including analysts, press, prospective participants and other
TCs) will read about your TC's work. So we would like to make sure it
correctly states what the TC is currently producing and when it is expected
to be completed.
Looking at the TC's charter (at
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/bcm/charter.php) I see that you have a
plan for "a completed specification" but no other deliverables. Does this
mean all deliverables have been fulfilled? What else is anticipated within
the committee's scope?
Also, the TC currently has an apparently-active EPR subcommittee: I am
concerned about whether its credible project plans fit within the BCM
charter or need to be articulated as separate deliverables (or a separate
project). The OASIS TC Process rules applicable to charters (see
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#charter) permit the TC to
act formally to clarify its charter, if for the purpose of removing
ambiguity, narrowing scope, or adding new deliverables within
scope. Please let me know if we can assist with this. I'm happy to
discuss the issue with you or your TC; final approval of charter changes
is Karl's responsibility.
c. Liaisons: We try to assess and track official liaison activities
and designations among our TCs, and among our TCs and groups at other
orgs. (By "liaison" we mean, at least, some act designating a person to
convey information, not just someone who happened to hold overlapping
memberships.)
I *think* that BCM has liaisons with the following organizations:
OASIS CAM TC David Webber
OASIS ebXML Registry TC Carl Mattocks
OASIS eGov TC David Webber
OASIS EPS TC John Weiler
OASIS WSBPEL TC Sally St.Amand, David Webber
Is this correct? Are there any others, e.g., with other OASIS TCs? Who is
serving as the liaison for those relationships?
Finally, while I've got your attention, let me mention some upcoming
activities that you might want to call to the attention of your committee:
At the OASIS Adoption Forum in Brussels the week of 4 October (see
http://www.oasis-open.org/events/adoption_forum/) there will be facilities
for TCs to have face-to-face meetings. There will also be opportunity for
TC meetings at the XML 2004 conference in Washington DC the week of 15
November. Please contact Jane Harnad (jane.harnad@oasis-open.org), Events
Manager at OASIS, if your TC would like to take advantage of this opportunity.
There are also opportunities for TCs to conduct public interoperability
demos of approved specifications at various upcoming industry events. We
find these can be very helpful to focus user and analyst awareness of
specific standards. If your TC sees a potential for interest in a public
demo, when there is an approved spec that is satisfactory for a public
showing of support, please contact my colleague Dee Schur
(dee.schur@oasis-open.org), our Member Outreach Manager.
Finally, as you probably know, we are in the midst of a member review of
the proposed new OASIS IPR Policy (see
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200407/msg00002.html). Under
this revised policy TCs will have a new opportunity and mandate to declare
which of several optional IPR terms will apply to its new work. The IPR
rules for your committee *will* change as a result of these policies, when
they become effective. (See the "Transition" document in the review
package.) Of course, it is our hope and the Board's that the changes will
result in clearer rules and better working conditions for productive
standardization. However, we encourage your TC to review the proposal, to
confirm that its procedures and options will suit your needs. Comments
about this are welcomed by the Board, by submitting them to submit them to
the email address listed in the announcement.
Thanks for your attention. We appreciate the time and energy that you and
all of our participants bring to leadership in the e-business standards
process. Best regards. Jamie Clark
~ James Bryce Clark
~ Manager, Technical Standards Development, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.shtml
~ +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
~ +1 310 293 6739 direct
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]