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

[Luc Clément <luc@iclement.net>]

Karl,

UDDI TC work is NOT taking place off list. I think you're missing the point;
its simple reality that for early collaboration work some authors do resort
to private email to exchange versions of work-in-progress. This is
specifically what I'd like to avoid - I'd like to see a support in a system
that encourages them to share this work with the TC as soon as possible. A
sandbox with the ability to restrict public access (for a while) would
suffice; by the way, Kavi currently supports this. 

By providing such a feature, it is my hope that we cut down on private email
and move the discussion on the list as soon as possible. What I'm advocating
IS openness. I agree with you on this. 

Luc

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl F. Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 09:42
To: Luc Clément
Cc: 'John DeCarlo'; 'Eduardo Gutentag'; 'Chairs OASIS';
jeff.lomas@oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] latest draft of doc mgmt system requirements

Luc:

The philosophy of OASIS is openness. All technical work must be conducted in
the open so that it can be inspected and commented upon by other members of
the TC and OASIS, and by the public. All of our TC list archives and
documents are publicly visible. While I can understand a desire to work
privately, this is not what OASIS is about.

I'm a bit disturbed by your statement that some UDDI TC work is taking place
off list; this is not allowed. Please see
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#visibility

-Karl




Luc Clément wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 


--
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
Vice President, OASIS
office  +1 978.667.5115 x206     mobile +1 978.761.1648
karl.best@oasis-open.org      http://www.oasis-open.org