OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary

Our Adoption TC is certainly interested. We are producing best practices
documents and other guides but no specifications.

JoAnn Hackos PhD
Comtech Services, Inc.
Skype joannhackos


-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Anthony Nadalin
Cc: Jeff Mischkinsky; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary

Hy Tony,

  While you may not see it in any of the TCs you participate in, a
number of TCs are producing documents that they would like to have
approved (i.e. the TC is in agreement on the content of the document),
particularly in our Adoption TCs, but also by TCs wishing to produce
ancilliary documents such as a user's guide or best practices, or
possibly a white paper. It could also be a requirements document. The
list is far from exhaustive, which is why we have not tried to identify
each and every possible type of artifact.



Mary P McRae
Director, Standards Development
Technical Committee Administrator
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
email: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org 
web: www.oasis-open.org
twitter: @fiberartisan  #oasisopen
phone: 1.603.232.9090

Standards are like parachutes: they work best when they're open.

On Jan 8, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Anthony Nadalin wrote:

> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> ==============
>> 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.
>> -------------------------------
>> 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.
>> =======================
>> 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.)
>> ==================
>> 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
> Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware
> 	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]