RE: [chairs] Re: Committee Notes

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Martin Chapman <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@ORACLE.COM> wrote on 12/14/2010 01:28:56 
PM:

> 
> The media relations policy has not been updated to reflect the current 
policy.
> 
> Martin.
> 

Hi Martin,

In what sense do you mean?

A) The Board has adopted a new Media Relations Policy but the OASIS 
website has not been updated to show this?

or

B) The Board has not yet adopted a new Media Relations Policy that has 
been reconciled with the new TC Process?

And regardless of the Media Policy, I am still confused about what is 
allowed and not allowed by TCs.

A few years ago we had a two "tracks" in OASIS.  There was a specification 
path, that took us through Committee Drafts, Committee Specifications and 
OASIS Standard.  And then there was the path taken for everything else, 
ranging from for whitepapers to webinars, from podcasts to presentations.  
But that track was undeniably used, since OASIS undeniably has TCs that 
list such deliverables in their approved charters and have further 
approved and published such items, including presentations, podcasts, etc. 
 Aside from the Media Policy and the Interop Demo Policy, OASIS made no 
additional requirements on this other, informal track.

Flash forward and we added Approved Errata as another track.  A technical 
deliverable that contained only non-susbtantive corrections that could be 
approved by the TC.  OK.  Fine.  This is very useful, sorta like technical 
corrigenda in ISO terms.

Now we've added a Committee Note track.  A technical document, but one 
that does not contain conformance clauses.  Very useful, IMHO, analogous 
to a Technical Report in ISO terms.  We certainly had TCs that previously 
tried to squeeze such material into the one-size-fits-all template and it 
was a pain.  I'm glad to have the Committee Note track.  I certainly plan 
on using it.

However, these three tracks: OASIS Standard, Committee Note and Approved 
Errata together do not span all of the activities and deliverables that 
are legitimately made today by TCs operating in scope of their approved 
charters.  And I don't mean "administrative documents" like meeting 
minutes and agendas.  I mean things listed in charters as deliverables. I 
think the "adoption" TCs are the ones who are going to feel this 
disconnect most keenly, since they are the ones chartered to produce 
webinars, etc.

So I still see a disconnect here.  I think we either need to:

A) Strike out all deliverables from TC charters that do not align with 
something OASIS is willing to support Committee Specification, Committee 
Note or Errata templates for, and kill any TCs where the result is they 
have no remaining possible deliverables;

or

B)Define a policy under which adoption TCs and other TCs whose charters 
calls for these kinds of deliverables can continue to to their work, with 
due attention to consensus approval process and IPR concerns.

Time is of the essence here.  The ODF Adoption TC is planning to do more 
podcasts over the next couple of weeks.  And we're also mapping out a 
series of other deliverables for Q1 where there are today no approved 
OASIS templates.  I'm all for the ending of the one-size-fits-all track 
that we had before.  I'm 100% behind having multiple tracks.  But please 
please please makes sure the tracks together span the range of 
deliverables that were already permitted to OASIS TCs per their charters.

Regards,

-Rob