[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary
The SDD TC, for one, made such a request, regarding documents such as Jeff notes in his original e-mail (including primer, profile, examples, best practices). Regards, Brent Brent A. Miller Senior Technical Staff Member, Master Inventor Chief Architect, Tivoli Autonomic Computing & Component Technologies IBM Corp. Tel. 919-224-1027 (TIE 687) "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." -- Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut From: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> To: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com> Cc: "chairs@lists.oasis-open.org" <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 01/08/2010 02:52 PM Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary I'm not aware of any requests to approve "things" that are not specifications, thus I question these chnages -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:07 AM To: Anthony Nadalin Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary On Jan 08, 2010, at 10:36 AM, Anthony Nadalin wrote: > Before I comment on these changes, I would like to have the rationale > for each of these changes to better understand them. I tried to describe the motivations in the explanatory text. Mostly, there has been a lot demand/request to add a way so that TCs can approve "things" that are not specifications. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 7:45 PM > To: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary > > Hi, > > The Process Committee is proposing some additions and > modifications to the TC Process and is soliciting feedback and > comments on this "almost" final draft. I've tried to summarize the > major and minor changes in this email, but you should read the real > docs (attached) if you'd like to see the detailed changes. > > A major focus of the Process Committee for the last two years has > been to add a "non-standards TC approval" track to the process. > There were conflicting requirements involving trade-offs between IPR > Policy, approval processes, reviews, etc. The result which you see > before you is not quite as delicate a compromise as that surrounding > the current US health care debates, but its close. :-) I've broken > down the changes into 3 major components, but please keep in mind > that they interact with each other, and that they are intended to > work together. > (I've always wanted to use the phrase "synergistic changes" but i will > refrain.) > > The plan is to consider these changes at the next Board f2f > meeting at the beginning of February, so we'd like to have feedback > and comments available by January 25 ( a week or so before the Board > meeting) so that they can be considered by the Process Committee and > the Board. > > Attached you will find a redline showing the changes from the > current policy, and a clean copy. The current policy is on the OASIS > web site. > > Thanks and appreciation are due to Mary McRae (the OASIS TC admin) > for a yeowoman's job in editing the TC Process doc, and keeping up > with the various gyrations, drafts, and proposals that the Process > Committee have produced, debated, thrown away, and finally settled on. > > Disclaimer: Also please note that this email is MY attempt, as TC > Process Chair, to describe the changes and has not been formally > approved by the TC Process Committee. (And I'm sure its members will > chime in with their own comments if they are so moved. ;-) > > cheers, > Jeff Mischkinsky, Chair, OASIS Board TC Process Committee > > > MAJOR CHANGES: > ============== > > PUBLIC REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR TC LEVEL APPROVAL (Section 3.2 and 2.18 > A) > ------------------------------------------------ > The Public Review requirements for TC level approvals have been > simplified and streamlined, partially to accommodate the addition of > a non-standards track. > Basically the minimum for initial public review will be 30 days > (down from 60 days) with subsequent reviews being at least 15 days. > ANY changes made after a review closes must be submitted again for > public review. > > Section 2.18 has been split to distinguish between Committee Spec (no > change) and Committee Notes (new) > > > COMMITTEE NOTES aka "non-standards track work product", aka "info > docs" (Section 2.18 B and 3.3) > --------------- > The Process Committee has been working for almost 2 years to add a > "non-standards" TC approval track. > > The basic idea is that we've added a means whereby TC's will be able > to approve as a Committee Note any material that is not intended to > be a standard. These could be primers, explanatory material, best > practices (how to use a standard), presentations/papers, test > suites, etc., that can be "officially" approved as representing the > views of the TC, etc. They will be covered by the IPR policy. The > mechanics of the approval process are the same as for a Committee > Specification so that there is no incentive to classify something as > standards track vs. non-standards track because one is easier to get > approved, i.e. > can't "game the system". > > A non-standards track work product stops at the Committee Note level. > Therefore it may NOT be put up for an OASIS-wide vote, unlike a > standards track work product, nor submitted to an outside (de jure) > body. > > Committee Notes will have different templates, cover pages, etc. to > distinguish them from specifications/standards. They are not > intended to be normatively referenced by other standards (either > inside or outside of OASIS), though of course there is no way to > actually stop someone from doing so (hence the IPR safeguards and > rigorous review/ approval process). > > A TC can choose to "re-target" a work product by deciding to switch > templates and going back to the CD stage. > > Section 2.18 B, which is new, describes the required parts of > Committee Note. Essentially they are the same as for Committee Specs > except that a Conformance Clause (B1) and external files for > programming language artifacts (B5) are optional. > > OASIS STANDARD APPROVAL PROCESS (Section 3.4) > ------------------------------- > The process from going from Committee Spec to OASIS standard has > been modified. We've identified a new state for a Committee Spec > that a TC wishes to advance to OASIS Standard, called a Candidate > OASIS Standard to clarify things. > > The main change is to now require a 60 day public review of the > Candidate OASIS standard, to ensure that OASIS standards that are > submitted for international (de jure) standards processing meet > their review requirements. This replaces the "familiarization > period" under the current policy. Candidates may now be submitted at > any time (not just once a month) and TC admin now has at most 15 > days to complete processing and start the Public Review. > > Once the public review has completed, there are now shortened > timelines for conducting the subsequent approval votes. The possible > outcomes of the public review (no comments, comments but no changes > made as a result, changes made as a result) and the subsequent > processing rules have been clarified. > > Note: The minimum time lines for the public reviews and votes should > be approximately equal to get to OASIS standard and shorter for > Committee Spec under the new system. > > IMPLEMENTATION PHASE IN > ======================= > The Process Committee is going to recommend that non-standards track > be added "immediately", where "immediately" means something like the > beginning of the month following Board approval. Changes to > currently "in flight" standards track documents will be phased in so > that work product that is currently "close" to being approved will > be subject to the old rules. The exact definition of "close" > contained in the first para of Section 3.4 are still somewhat > tentative. (I think it is safe to say they would only be loosened, > not tightened.) > > MORE MINOR CHANGES > ================== > > 1. Uniform 7 day membership deadline for initial TC meeting whether > f2f or telecon. (2.3) > > 2. Clarified requirements for comment processing and made clear that > once a doc is out for public review if someone discovers a major > "oops" that requires a change before the review period ends, then it > must be withdrawn and resubmitted for a new public review (if the TC > so desires). (3.2 2nd and 3rd para) > > 3. Clarified requirements around which versions of oasis templates > to use. (3.4.1) > > 4 Clarified rules around the mechanics of OASIS standard > ballots(3.4.3) > > 5. Various other more minor clarifications, editorial changes, etc., > some of which i've probably missed in the above list. > -- Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware +1(650)506-1975 and Web Services Standards 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9 Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]