RE: [chairs] latest draft of doc mgmt system requirements

[Luc Clément <luc@iclement.net>]

I support public access at stage 2) and 3) but would very much want to see a
sandbox not open to the public at stage 1) *if* the authors would like to
restrict access to a given document; the default of course should be for the
sandbox to be open to the public. The rationale for allowing closed access
is to encourage authors to share their views as expressed in documents they
author with the TC as early as possible; doing so allows the TC to engage
early on with the authors. Otherwise authors concerned about putting out
not-ready-for-prime-time documents will be compelled to carry out their work
over private email which results in the TC missing out on much of the
thought process and opportunities to influence the work.

The UDDI Spec TC is currently working out v.Next requirements. Due to
current Kavi restrictions, private mail is used in collaborative efforts.
Having a sandbox would help multi-author collaborative efforts; having the
ability to restrict access to the public to work-in-progress documents would
allow the TC to comment on documents that authors may not be willing to
offer to the TC's public mail list but would gladly share with the rest of
the TC.

It is my view that allowing for the flexibility of restricting public access
to specific document will serve community and OASIS interests best.
 
Luc Clément
Secretary, OASIS UDDI Spec TC
 

-----Original Message-----
From: John DeCarlo [mailto:jdecarlo@mitre.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:24
To: karl.best@oasis-open.org
Cc: Eduardo Gutentag; Chairs OASIS; jeff.lomas@oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] latest draft of doc mgmt system requirements

Hello,

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 forth.

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
formats.

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even if it is public, may want to delete superseded documents (which is less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