I have similar concerns.
I think we should move as rapidly as we can while still making deliberate decisions based on a full understanding of each situation. We should never let arbitrary or artificial timelines force us to make hasty or poorly informed decisions. I have no objections
to working groups focused on specific tasks as long as they are inclusive of anyone wishing to collaborate and express input, as long as they actively seek to fully understand the task at focus and not to artificially constrain its scope to anyone’s personal
preferences and as long as it is clear that the results from any working group are only a headstart to work from and not a settled solution. We need to be careful to present the results of a working group to the TC for ongoing discussion in a way that does
not put the onus on TC members not in the working group to somehow have to “justify” their dissenting opinions. All opinions should be treated equally and with respect.
If we can do working groups in this way, I believe they can be a successful approach.
I also understand and concur with your concerns on the Slack issue.
I think we need to talk through and find a solution to these concerns.
I believe that these efforts to make quick changes risks making hasty changes that are not adequately considered and that we will later regret.
Furthermore, these mini-working groups break the transparency that was expected when moving to OASIS. Frankly, I am surprised that OASIS is permitting the use of Slack - how do those discussion get tracked within OASIS systems? Currently, my organization
does not permit access to Slack so we do not have a way to see those discussion, never mind contribute.
Until these questions are resolved, I recommend against these mini-working groups or further breakout discussions on Slack.
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 11:14 PM
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] [cti] New Mini-Working Groups
We have kicked off a few mini-working groups to address some key issues, they are as follows:
1) Patterning: Allan, John-Mark, Jason, and Ivan are heading up this discussion. Anyone can join in on Slack at #patterning or on email. The due date for this proposal is Tuesday March 22nd.
2) Versioning: Looking for 3-4 people to lead this work. Anyone can join in on Slack at #versioning or on email. The due date for this proposal is Tuesday March 22nd
3) Sightings: Looking for 3-4 people to lead this work. Anyone can join on Slack at #sightings or on email. This due date for this proposal is Tuesday March 22nd.
In general we will try and run 3-4 mini-working groups at a time, each with a 2 week delivery window. You can think of it as a sprint in development terms. If you want to be involved early on in the proposal phase, PLEASE make it known.
Further, we hope to get leadership setup for Versioning and Sightings tomorrow. If any of you are interested in helping to lead either one of these, please let us know. (btw, we are looking for 3-4 leaders for each topic). They will be responsible for
driving the discussion, gathering feedback from everyone, writing up proposed normative text, and then presenting their proposal on a CTI wide working call.
Bret Jordan CISSP
Director of Security Architecture and Standards | Office of the CTO Blue Coat Systems PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050 "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: