RE: [chairs] Re: Committee Notes

[Martin Chapman <MARTIN.CHAPMAN@oracle.com>]

Comments below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 14 December 2010 20:59
> To: Martin Chapman
> Cc: chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: Committee Notes
> 
> 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?


B) the media relations policy has not been reconciled with the new TC process. It fell through the cracks during the roll-out, and is on the todo list. 

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

The big difference we are trying to communicate is as an individual you can present anything providing you don't make it look like it is an official TC final deliverable if it hasn't yet got to the final stage.

> 
> 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.
> 

Thats is the point. This informal track was undocumented, with no rules, and different TCs were doing different things.

> 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.

Errata was, and is, part of the standards track, not a track on its own. Most the TAB and Board realise the errata process is somewhat limited and we are discussing a revision. This becomes increasingly important for ISO and JTC1 work.

> 
> 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;

I don't thank A) is a healthy option for OASIS

> 
> 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.

This really was the intention of the new track, so we need to listen to see where it is failing.

> 
> 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.

My view on podcasts/webinars etc is that the meta-data contains the necessary 2.18 quality info and that the first 5 minutes is not spent reading out TC member names!

> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob