chairs message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: Committee Notes
- From: Brent Miller <bamiller@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)" <gerjosep@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:28:20 -0500
If you consider a public review a waste
of time, and don't see any value in producing a Committee Note, then why
not just leave your articles in Committee Note Draft state -- these are
approved by your TC -- and tell the audience that is interested in them
that they're not available as Committee Note Drafts (if you don't see any
value in progressing them to Committee Notes, then just don't do it...nothing
says you must, as far as I know).
Regards,
Brent
Brent A. Miller
Senior Technical Staff Member, Master Inventor
Intellectual Property Solutions Engineer
IBM Corp.
Tel. 919-543-3621 (TIE 441)
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t
matter, and those who matter don’t mind"
-- Theodor Suess Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss)
From:
"Gershon Joseph
(gerjosep)" <gerjosep@cisco.com>
To:
"Mary McRae"
<mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Cc:
"Jeff Mischkinsky"
<jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>,
<members@lists.oasis-open.org>, <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:
12/16/2010 05:23 AM
Subject:
RE: [chairs]
Re: Committee Notes
If we are unlikely to get any serious comments, why
waste the time with the 30 day review? I doubt we'd get much in the way
of comments from the public -- they are interested in our final feature
articles, not work in progress. Also, they generally don't want to participate
in the development of our articles, or they would be participating on the
Adoption TC. I still fail to see the value in all this.
Cheers,
Gershon
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:27 PM
To: Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)
Cc: Jeff Mischkinsky; Norman Walsh; members@lists.oasis-open.org; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [chairs] Re: Committee Notes
I wonder if I might be teasing out a bit of a misunderstanding here ...
during a public review, comments may be received. If, as a result of those
comments, the document is modified, a further review is required before
proceeding to Committee Note (or Committee Specification). However, there
is no requirement that all comments be addressed by modifying the document,
or that a review must occur with 0 comments before proceeding. "Will
fix in next release," "Thanks, we considered that, but decided
against it," or "No action taken" are all legitimate responses
to comments. More importantly, however, getting input from more than just
the TC as to whether a document has fulfilled its purpose, is
understandable, is not ambiguous, addresses the problem, etc. only
serves to make the document better and encourage broader participation
in the process and should not be seen as an impediment.
Best regards,
Mary
On Dec 15, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Gershon Joseph (gerjosep) wrote:
> Comments below, inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Gershon
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 5:09 PM
> To: Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)
> Cc: Norman Walsh; Mary McRae; members@lists.oasis-open.org; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Re: Committee Notes
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Gershon Joseph (gerjosep) wrote:
>
>> The DITA Adoption TC is *very* concerned by this. Our TC produced
>> about 10 feature articles in the space of less than a year, and
>> under the new process it would take us years.
> How does a 30 day public review add years?
> [Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)] There is a 30 day initial public review
period, then a 15 day review every time we update the document. I doubt
we'll get zero comments every time we do a public review.
>
>> Our concern is that by the time our non-normative feature articles
>> finally get to the users, they won't be relevant anymore. The
>> purpose of these feature articles is to educate the public on
>> upcoming features in the future DITA spec, and now we shall be
>> unable to deliver these well-received articles as fast as the
market
>> requires.
>
> If the lifetime of these articles is on the order 30 days, then i
have
> to ask why the bother/concern?
> If its longer, then i don't see how 30 days is a big factor,
> especially since the docs are all public when they are still in draft
> stage.
> [Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)] The lifetime of the document is probably
infinite, but the time to market is critical here. Users are begging us
to release feature articles that help them to understand and implement
features, and how to best use the features that the spec supports. Vendors
are asking for use cases. If it takes one to three months to release each
article (optimistically) due to the new OASIS process, then articles get
to the users much later, leaving them to guess, or work without guidance,
during that period of time before we release the article.
>
>> So we're effectively punishing our users and hindering adoption
>> instead of promoting adoption.
> I would say that we are encouraging TC's to carefully consider
> documents before they are adopted and made "official".
> [Gershon Joseph (gerjosep)] TCs carefully consider documents before
voting them to approval -- at least, on the DITA Adoption TC, we have a
thorough review of each document, with several iterations made before we
approve it. I don't see how a public review is going to add to the already
high quality of our adoption-related artifacts.
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]