Re: [chairs] No more Committee Specifications?

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Norman,

I'm deep in this on two spec's right now - BCM and CAM.

I agree - it should be clearer.  Also - people have to vote 
TWICE on the document - once to approve it - and then
again to move it to OASIS for review / vote.

This is too much for most - it would help if Kavi automatically
threw them into the next vote once they click on the one - 
but it doesn't - so they vote once and think they are done....

Chaos.

In a similar vein - I'm finding that getting Member Company
endorsement of their use of spec's can be like pulling teeth - 
after its first gone thru Company Marketing and then Legal - 
for sign-off - what comes back can be unrecognizable - then
it has to go back again because they left off key words from
the OASIS side.   

More Chaos.  

Also - the bigger scheme of things is changing - whereas it
used to be the model that big companies did stuff and that
made the spec's real - now you have open source - and 
therefore there is only likely to be one implementation - but 
many people using it for different clients.   Not to mention
that many committees now only have one or two sleep
members from big companies and all the work is being
done by individual members.

I'd like to see validation of spec's be allowed to include
an open source implementation as one of the three - and
that endorsements from fielded substantial clients (say
more than 500 employees or similar) - be allowed too
as equivalent to an OASIS member company saying
they like it.

This is eating up a lot of committee time right now when
this should be simpler and easier to do - and people 
who want to endorse specifications and are 
happily using them - should be able to say that
and it count.

Thanks, DW.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
To: <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:36 PM
Subject: [chairs] No more Committee Specifications?