Re: [chairs] report on grumblings from some TCs

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Jamie,

I understood, and understand about the most recent increase in 
technical requirements and the need for these, and some of the 
grumblings I referred to are definitely not taking this into 
consideration, and I have tried to point that out. I also agree that 
the delays related to the need for revisions will decrease as TCs 
become more accustomed to the changes and bring in the review-ready 
versions in better shape. I am also glad that you are aware of the 
various factors at play in this. Perhaps we could schedule a chairs 
meeting at the Symposium? I know how difficult that would be, but it 
might actually be a good time to do a reality check since we will all 
have had a bit more experience with these improved procedures, and I 
do think that this is an improvement and a move in the right 
direction.

My comments were more of a nudge than comment. And certainly not a 
specific comment related to a specific incident. Just wanted to let 
you know what I'd heard before it ever gets a chance to come to a 
head, especially not with yours truly anywhere in proximity of the 
midpoint.

Thanks,
Rex



At 9:47 AM -0800 2/16/06, James Bryce Clark wrote:
>     Good morning Rex.
>     If the concern is that we're not getting public reviews launched 
>fast enough once a TC has formally requested it, we agree.  That is 
>why we put some specific response-time and service-level commitments 
>into place earlier this month.  See 
>http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200602/msg00001.html.
>     We also changed our rules last year to increase the technical 
>requirements associated with specs -- things such as compliance with 
>templates and the provision of final prints for review in some 
>specified file formats -- see, for example, 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#2.18.   Frankly, 
>the number of submissions that came in 'ready for review' without 
>meeting those requirements increased.  In which case some amount of 
>feedback and correction must occur.  (While most of these form 
>requirements in the rules technically apply to all committee specs 
>at any level, as a practical matter the staff often only sees and 
>filters them for the first time when they're proposed for public 
>review.)  It's my guess that the degree of delay caused by 
>noncompliance will decrease with time.
>     However, none of that takes away from the need for predictable 
>turn-around time.  In the case of public review submissions that is 
>posting or rejection within 5 business days of receipt to the 
>address [tc-admin@oasis-open.org].   The first priority for my 
>colleague Mary McRae's time is to execute on those turn-around 
>times, as described in more detail is included in that 7 February 
>message linked above.
>     We also asked in that message for comments on those deadlines, 
>and they're still welcome.  One early one is that many users would 
>prefer 'calendar day' instead of 'business day' deadlines.  We plan 
>to make that change once we've spooled a few more comments.  Most of 
>those SLA deadlines are procedural service commitments from staff, 
>not enacted rules, so we can adjust them in response to early 
>feedback.
>     Thanks for your feedback.  Regards  Jamie
>
>~   James Bryce Clark
>~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS
>~   jamie.clark@oasis-open.org
>
>At 09:11 AM 2/16/2006, Rex Brooks wrote:
>>Hi Folks,
>>Since I span several TCs, SCs and do the chair or co-chair honors 
>>on a couple, while restricting myself to regular voting membership 
>>on others, I wanted to report that I am hearing, and personally 
>>noticing some slight dissatisfaction in the timeliness of moving 
>>specs into * * * public review * * *


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309