RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template

["Hal Lockhart" <hlockhar@bea.com>]

Well, I guess we have been lucky in SAML and XACML. I have not seen a
lot of SPAM and we not only get possible FAQs, but also sometimes errata
received outside of the Public Review cycle.

If the SPAM problem is that bad my suggestion may not be practical. It
is important to mention why the comment policy was changed at the same
time as the IPR policy. There is a legitimate concern about an
unidentified party seeding an OASIS Standard with ideas protected by
patents. This kind of thing has actually happened in other Standards
orgs.

On XACML, we respond directly to the email address provided. Often the
question is a good candidate for an FAQ, or a hint that the document is
not clear enough. In some cases, comments have been accepted as errata.

Hal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Cover [mailto:robin@oasis-open.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: Hal Lockhart
> Cc: Carol Geyer; Paul Knight; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
> 
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Hal Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > Every TC has a public comment list. Historically, something like
> > half of the comments are actually questions. I suggest the FAQ
> > template simply point readers to the public comment list for the TC.
> >
> > Hal
> 
> 
> For some TCs, historically, something like half (or more) of the
> "comments" are actually spam. [1]
> 
> Pointing readers from the TC's FAQ document (template) to the public
> comment list might not be the optimal solution:
> 
> a) spam in the comment list archives may suggest to a casual
>    reader that the comment form facility is broken, or otherwise
>    unsiutable as a mean of getting an answer to a question
> 
> b) some TCs might feel that use of the TC public comment list
>    for Q&A will "screw up our comment tracking" [2]
> 
> c) asking a question on the TC public comment list involves
>    trying to use a communication channel that has been
>    deliberately crippled by a change in the TC Process [3]
> 
> I say "crippled" in "c)" because at one time, it was permissible
> to use the public comment list for general public discussion of the
> TC work. That allowed someone to ask a question, receive an answer,
> request a clarification, receive a clarified answer, and so forth
> (dialogue, discussion). According to the memory of some (including
> my memory) that was originally the intended purpose of of the
> comment list. [4]
> 
> Rules for use of the comment list as a two-way communication
> channel were changed when the TC Process was altered to read
> "comment facility", with the stipulation that discussion would
> not be countenanced; see now TC Process 2.8 TC Visibility"
> "... a means to collect public comments" ... "The purpose of the
> TC's public comment facility is to receive comments from the
> public and is not for public discussion."
> 
> Use of the comment form instead of direct email opened up
> a hole for spammers [5], and the TC Chairs seemed not
> entirely happy with the change [6].
> 
> Irrespective of the spam problem, which may be fixed by
> reverting back to email: Questions are clearly different than
> comments in terms of human communication process.
> 
> Within OASIS Staff, I am now trying to create consensus around the
> position that OASIS should support archived, two-way communication
> (discussion, dialogue) between the TCs and the public.  Some
> TCs use the *-dev lists for common questions; others feel
> that the *-dev lists should be reserved for technical details
> of implementation, not for garden-variety questions from
> interested members of the public who think of themselves as
> possible users, not as "developers".
> 
> Robin Cover
> 
> -----------
> 
> [1] spammed lists (examples):
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200602/maillist.html
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-enotary-
> comment/200601/maillist.html
> 
> [2] Jon Bosak, "Misuse of ubl-comment list
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200410/msg00004.html
> 
> [3] Whereas originally, according to some versions of history, the
> TC comment list was *specifically* designed as a mechanism to support
> two-way dialogue and discussion [4], the TC Process change was
> designed to prevent discussion
> 
> [4]  http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00026.html
>      http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00027.html
> 
> Jon Bosak: "Actually, the intent of the comment lists *was* to provide
> a forum for public discussion.  It's a feature of the OASIS process
that
> I've pointed to with pride in presentations to thousands of people
> over the last couple of years.  Guess I'll have to stop doing
> that. -- Jon
> 
> Contrast Karl Best:
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200206/msg00003.html
> 
> "This is supposed to be a one-way pipe to get public comments into the
TC.
> Admittedly some TCs have stretched this a bit to make them discussion
> lists, which I haven't fought too much against, but the original (and
> true)
> purpose is comments"
> 
> [5] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200312/msg00009.html
> 
>   Norm
>  "I see. Unfortunately, you've also opened a hole into which spammers
>   can throw things[1]. And there are plenty of spamming spiders out
>   there smart enough to do so."
> 
> [6] Comments about the comment form
> 
> **  Lauren Wood
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00011.html
> 
> ** Drummond Reed
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00012.html
> 
> **  Rich Thompson
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00013.html
> 
> ** Heather Kreger
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00022.html
> 
> "What's the purpose of excluding any public discussion for TC's?
> Having a public an TC private list is fairly common practice in
> other organizations I've been involved in (W3C, JCP) and it was
> appreciated...
> 
> ** Rich Thompson
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00023.html
> 
> ** Drummond Reed
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00024.html
> 
> "Dropping active public comment lists appears to be a step
> down in openness. That's generally not a good thing. Are there
> particular reasons driving the change?"
> 
> ** Ram Kumar
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00027.html
> 
> "I 100% agree with Jon. It *was* indeed a great tool for public
> discusson. I always advised the public whoever I came across..."
> 
> **  Karl Best
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00028.html
> 
> ** Robert Philpott
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00030.html
> 
> "I do worry a bit about not being able to ask follow-up questions
> without engaging in private email exchanges that should probably
> be kept public."
> 
> **  Rex Brooks
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00067.html
> 
> ... I have to say that I
> find the current policy to have, in effect, killed the public comment
> lists, to the detriment of the TCs and OASIS at large at a time when
> many of us are trying our best to improve the stature of OASIS in the
> arena of standards bodies. This is a shame,...
> 
> ===
> 
> 
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Carol Geyer [mailto:carol.geyer@oasis-open.org]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 2:50 PM
> > > To: 'Paul Knight'; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
> > >
> > > Good point, Paul.
> > >
> > > Many Committees, such as the OASIS Security Services TC
> > (http://www.oasis-
> > > open.org/committees/security/faq.php), include a statement
> > > such as "If you have a question that is not answered here, or if
you
> > have
> > > questions or comments on any of the answers provided, feel
> > > free to contact the editor <link to an email address of a TC
member
> > who
> > > has taken on the responsibility for maintaining the FAQ>."
> > >
> > >
> > > If anyone has other ideas for encouraging reader input to FAQs,
please
> > let
> > > me know.
> > >
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Knight [mailto:paul.knight@nortel.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:37 AM
> > > To: Carol Geyer; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
> > >
> > > Hi Carol,
> > >
> > > Is there any way for FAQ readers to actually ASK a Question?
(other
> > than
> > > the mailing list?)  One great frustration with most FAQs is
> > > that they don't answer the questions people really want to ask,
> > because
> > > there is actually no clear way to A a Q.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Paul Knight
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Carol Geyer [mailto:carol.geyer@oasis-open.org]
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 10:54 AM
> > > > To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: [chairs] TC FAQ Template
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > OASIS Committee Chairs:
> > > > Each OASIS TC is provided with an FAQ page, linked from the
upper
> > > > right column of the TC's public homepage. This FAQ is a very
> > important
> > > > resource for helping prospective members, press, analysts, and
OASIS
> > > > staff better understand your work.
> > > >
> > > > The OASIS Technical Advisory Board has compiled a list of
generic
> > > > questions that provide a basis for all TC FAQs. This is a great
way
> > to
> > > > get started writing your FAQ, but naturally, you are free to add
> > > > questions specific to your work. Also, keep in mind that edits
to
> > > > posted FAQ can be made at any time.
> > > >
> > > > Please take a moment to review your TC's FAQ page. Send new text
or
> > > > edits to me, and we'll get them posted as soon as possible.
> > > >
> > > > Again, *all* OASIS Committees should provide information on
their
> > FAQ
> > > > pages. It is particularly crucial for TC's preparing to submit
work
> > > > for approval. Press releases announcing new OASIS Standards must
> > > > reference an updated FAQ.
> > > >
> > > > TAB Recommended Questions:
> > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/download.php/
> > > 11675/tab-generic-faq-approved.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > Many thanks,
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________
> > > Carol Geyer
> > > Director of Communications
> > > OASIS
> > > Voice: +1.978.667.5115 x209
> > >
> > > OASIS Symposium: The Meaning of Interoperability
> > > 9-12 May, San Francisco
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium_2006/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> --