OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [chairs] latest draft of doc mgmt system requirements


I believe that there are really three stages:

1) Someone has an idea for a new document, or how to rewrite a current 
document.  Two or three people agree to draft this up and work together 
on it.  Today, in the WSDM TC, this means emailing the document back and 

2) The document is still rough, but ready for TC review.  It gets posted 
to the OASIS web site and is publicly available.

3) The TC/OASIS likes the document and makes it more formal, like a 
Committee Spec, or a Standard, and it gets published formally in various 

So, the question is whether there is a requirement to support the work 
done in 1).  People may or may not want the very early work to be 
public.  Or even if it is public, may want to delete superseded 
documents (which is less useful the further you get).  Is this the 
"sandbox"?  If it is, then the requirement might be that only the 
authors or sub group members have read or write access, until it is 
ready for the TC.

If the "sandbox" is 2), then those versions should be public, I believe.

It depends on how you view the "sandbox".

My basic position is that once it gets to a state where the TC can see 
it, then read access doesn't need to be restricted.

Karl F. Best wrote:

> I agree with Eduardo that this would not be an IPR issue. Nothing may be 
> brought to OASIS that rquires confidentiality.
> The closed door approach for the first phase was suggested, I believe, 
> because the work being done in the "sandbox" was very early and raw, and 
> possibly not something that anyone would want their name attached to. I 
> can understand that point of view, but I agree with Eduardo that this is 
> contradictory to the nature of OASIS work which must be done in the 
> open. I also agree with the concern of work never progressing to the 
> second pahse; I'd hate to see work never progress and therefore never be 
> made public.
> Does anyone have a suggestion for why it might be important to have the 
> "sandbox" work not be publicly viewable?
> -Karl


John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]