[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] TGF Minutes Report
Paul I can confirm that on your last point about not following the prescription, we sought and got guidance from TC Admin on the appropriate form of wording as ours was not about the interoperation of implementations. As you say whether the current TC processes are appropriate for our type of spec is a separate question for the Board and not one for my TC, all we have done is followed the current rules to the best of our ability and produced what is being recognised by public sector organisations around the world as a very worthwhile piece of work. Regards John Borras Chair OASIS TGF Technical Committee m. +(0)44 7976 157745 Skype: gov3john www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tgf From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] Peter I understand the challenges that you went through and they lead me to question whether: * either, the particular work product was not ideal for OASIS, * or the OASIS TC process needs to be modified to support this kind of work product. Certainly reading the TC conformance clauses and the part of the process I quoted, I believe that it has stretched the meaning of those to limits which I don't think were intended when the process was written. For example, I note that three of the five statements of use do not follow the prescription of "stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations.". Paul On 24 April 2013 02:22, Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com> wrote: Paul, It should be no surprise. CS Transform handed over their original work to the TC as a formal “Contribution” that served to bootstrap the whole endeavor. Several people with whom they worked wanted to be parties to the work’s further development in OASIS. I think that it is quite common for new TC’s who bring new members to OASIS to be involved with a key sponsor of the work. The important thing is that any OASIS member can join any TC – and many did, like myself, who had no prior knowledge of or affiliation with CS Transform. I found the work challenging in terms of the OASIS process – which is historically designed to work with technical and directly implementable specifications (and which possibly is at the origin of some of Patrick’s concerns – but we ensured that the process was respected in every detail. The proposal may not be to everyone’s liking but to claim as Patrick does that we have somehow “broken the rules” is simply not true. Thanks for taking a detailed look at the work and I hope that you can support it Best regards, Peter From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] One thing that I find interesting is in relation to this aspect of the TC process. The TC process states: ""Statement of Use", with respect to a Committee Specification, is a written statement that a party has successfully used or implemented that specification in accordance with all or some of its conformance clauses specified in Section 2.18, identifying those clauses that apply, and stating whether its use included the interoperation of multiple independent implementations." With regard to the five statements of use: One of the SOU's comes from CS Transform (whose CEO is one of the editors). Two more come from clients of CS Transform. Two are not linked (as far as I know) to CS Transform. In addition the Chair is a retired employee of CS Transform. If this was an interoperability standard with a requirement for multiple independent implementations I would be questioning the independence of at least 3 of the 5 statements of use. But its not. Paul On 24 April 2013 00:23, Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote:
-- wso2.com Lean Enterprise Middleware -- wso2.com Lean Enterprise Middleware |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]