[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. david From: Gershon Janssen
[mailto:gershon@qroot.com] Hi, 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. Regards, Gershon
Janssen |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]