[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary
I just got done reading the proposed revision and working my way through the email threads, and Mary's response is a good lead-in to my remaining questions. 1. Is there any substantive difference between a Committee Note and a Committee Specification that a TC decides not to advance to an OASIS Standard vote? I know the templates are different and this is important to visually differentiate the two classes of documents, but I don't consider the difference substantive. 2. In what way would a Committee Note indicate something different to the world than a Committee Specification that isn't advanced. Wouldn't it be simpler to designate specific wording to be included in a Committee Spec status section to just say this document represents one of the end products of the TC work? 3. How would we deal with the following scenario: a Committee Spec is advanced to an OASIS Standard vote and fails. The template is changed and the TC now deems it a Committee Note. Is this acceptable? ALternatively, can Committee Notes just become dead ends if a TC runs out of steam? Does having the designation of Committee Note improve or degrade having orphaned Committee Specs? Thanks, Ken On Jan 10, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Mary McRae wrote: > Hi Jon, > > A Committe Note does not replace Committee Specification. That is > still a very viable category, and there is no requirement that all > Committee Specifications be submitted for OASIS Standard ballot. If > what you're working on is a specification, then by all means it can > stay in the Standards Track. The new Non-Standards Track is to > support a formal process for approval of work products / documents > that aren't specifications. The Non-Standards Track defines the > approval level post public review as a Committee Note - the > equivalent in TC approval terms to a Committee Specification. > > I hope that clarifies and alleviates your concerns. > > Regards, > > Mary > > > 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 10, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jon Bosak wrote: > >> I don't have the energy to review the actual process language in >> detail -- I'm willing to trust that the Board and Staff have done >> the right thing -- so this comment is based on the summary. >> >> As Ken Holman has observed, some of the UBL deliverables are not >> intended for promotion to OASIS Standards. For two recent >> examples, see: >> >> UBL 2 Guidelines for Customization, First Edition >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/guidelines/UBL2-Customization1prd03.doc >> >> UBL 2.0 International Data Dictionary, Volume 1: >> Japanese, Italian, and Spanish >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ubl/idd/UBL-2.0-idd.html >> >> These have both been approved as Committee Specifications, which >> in each case was the intended end state. Under the revised >> process (if I understand it correctly), these documents will in >> the future undergo the same approval process but be known as >> Committee Notes. (I rather liked "Committee Specification" >> because documents such as these are, in fact, specifications, and >> the TC process as designed explicitly recognized a role for >> Committee Specification as an end state; but if the Board feels >> the need to specially identify specifications that are not >> intended to be made OASIS Standards, I can certainly live with >> Committee Note.) >> >> Anthony Nadalin wrote: >>> Why not have a new document type below specification, I see this >>> as trying to force fit and will open TCs up to all sorts of >>> strange things that may not be appropriate >> >> The category of Committee Specification was created in the first >> place to allow TCs to issue documents that represented their >> consensus effort as technical experts but were not necessarily >> intended to be endorsed by OASIS as an organization. A new >> category below CS would be redundant. >> >> Mason, Howard (UK) wrote: >>> I think this lower form of deliverable is exactly what >>> "Committee Note" is about. It has no normative content, but >>> provides useful explanatory information about the implementation >>> of a specification or standard, and needs some form of agreement >>> process. "Guideline" is too specific - "note" is OK. I guess >>> the ISO equivalent would be a Technical Report. >> >> I agree with almost all of this (and in fact would have preferred >> "Technical Report" because that's already a known ISO label for >> roughly the same thing, though I'm not passionate about it). But >> it should be understood that a specification that is not an OASIS >> Standard can be normative if someone wants to declare it as such >> within some particular context. For example, the UBL Guidelines >> for Customization could be declared to be normative if some >> organization wished to use them in that way. As noted in the >> summary contained in the message that began this thread: >> >> Committee Notes ... 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). >> >> The standards landscape is littered with specifications that were >> never declared Standards but are used normatively. Some IETF >> Requests for Comment are good examples. A particularly egregious >> case is European Legislation Regulation M/715 2007 (Euro 5), which >> mandates the implementation of a failed OASIS Committee Draft! >> You never know the use to which these documents will be put, so >> it's wise to require the same IPR policy and approval processes to >> CNs that are applied to CSs. >> >> Jon >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]