OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

cmis message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [cmis] Proposal CMIS TC issue process

Hi, Gershon,


Thanks for your Issue Process proposal.


To all:


Issue resolution process is of utmost importance to the TC since it governs how all the issues are to be handled. I consider it a TC “standing rule” which requires a “full majority vote of the TC” according to OASIS TC Procedure. That is, it requires a majority vote of all the voting members (not just a majority of those attending a meeting) to approve. We need to set up a ballot for this purpose. To make sure everybody has a chance to vote on it, I propose the ballot to stay open until at least 1 day after the Jan 26 TC meeting (so that people can gain voting right by attending Jan 12 and Jan 26 meetings). We do want to decide soon so that v0.52 can incorporate some of the issue resolutions. In the meantime, let us fine-tune the process before we set up the ballot.


I think the proposal to have every issue brought to TC meeting for disposition has merit. However, I have a couple of comments on Gershon’s proposal.

- I think the initial step to “accept” new issue is unnecessary for us. What value does it provide? Who gets to decide whether or not a new issue is accepted? Do we need to vote on every one?

- The real work is all the lines going in and out the “Open” box. Should we go over every single open issue at every TC meeting? Or, should someone monitor the open issues and only bring those that are ready for decision (or that are in stalemate or are inactive) to TC meeting? If the latter, who does that and what is the criteria to bring an issue to the meeting? If we have a lot of open issues, should we divide the workload to avoid bottleneck? The original proposal attempted to address some of these questions. The new proposal does not. If we rely solely on TC meeting to sort out all the open issues in our bag, it may not be the best use of our meeting time.


I have included this topic on Monday’s agenda.



From: Gershon Janssen [mailto:gershon@qroot.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:55 AM
To: cmis@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [cmis] Proposal CMIS TC issue process




I overheard the discussion during today’s TC about the issue process. I was in a very noisy environment so I didn’t had a chance to speak up without letting everybody enjoy all the background noise.


Personally I feel that Dennis is quite right about issues not defaulting into a resolved state without the TC actually discussing it – only if it’s just talking about it for a very short while.


So as a contribution to the discussion, I looking over some materials from another TC I’m participating in (BPEL4PEOPLE) and borrowed some texts from them, incorporated the guidelines from the CMIS TC as posted by Al, as a proposal for the issue process. This is somewhat heavier than the current proposed guidelines, but works quite well and keeps things organized.


I’m not suggesting we should use all of it, but it seems like a good issue process flow to me; maybe we can tailor it to this TCs needs.




Gershon Janssen





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]