[Apologies, these two paragraphs were meant to go first…]
Thank you Kris, for revisiting the policies for the relationship between the TC and SCs. At first, I was taken aback from your initial email in this matter, since it is in the interest of everybody to look for a pragmatic solution after
Carlos’ retreat.
Alan is certainly right in that the SC hasn’t had a chance to discuss the current options. As you summarized, the TC had the future of the LwDITA spec process twice on the agenda (Oct 26, Nov 2, the second one I missed unfortunately) and
there were “bilateral” talks between you, Kris, Robert (?) and Carlos. I must admit I don’t have the latest information on the results of these talks other than the TC minutes from Nov 2.
I think that, currently, work on LwDITA is at a critical junction. There is an agreement among SC members that there will be no more features added to what has been defined in the current spec documents so far. However, there is still a
lot of work in the editorial area as well as resolving technical issues given the current interlocking of DITA 2 and LwDITA contents, hence the discussion in the TC whether the formalization of LwDITA might be better off in a new committee note.
When I made the tentative, but reluctant offer on the TC to perhaps step in for Carlos, because I’m a voting member, it was based on these
formal grounds only, knowing all too well that I’d not be a candidate anyway capable of filling his shoes, due to my limited experience in OASIS work and LwDITA. And, yes, available time is a precious good for all of us. I did so, because I think that
the SC should continue to shape LwDITA as a group. LwDITA is important to many in our industry, the discussions in the TC showed this all too clearly as well as recent talks in the DITA-OT coordination calls. We need to finish this.
Tomorrow there is a regular SC meeting scheduled and we should discuss how to go from here. Kris, would you mind participating in this meeting as well to tell us about the outcome of your talks with Carlos?
As Alan, I’d like to encourage other SC members, who are also TC voting members, with a better track record than mine to think about stepping up as a chair. I just want to ensure that the SC doesn’t fall apart right now.
Thanks,
Frank
Thanks for the pointer to the SC governance documents (and apologies for overlooking them), and thank you for these guiding thoughts.
I’ll attempt to attend the next several TC meetings to regain voting status. I don’t want to “plant a flag” (the LwDITA SC would benefit from broader participation), but I do want to maintain the LwDITA SC's viability going forward, at
least in the short/medium term. I would also encourage Frank or others to step up.
And re-reading the policies document made me aware that we've got some steps to follow here. I was jumping the gun to suggest closing the subcommittee so rapidly; it's my (and the
TC's) responsibility to try to help arrange new leadership, if necessary.
-
Leadership: Do we have another person willing to serve as co-chair or secretary of the subcommittee? If so, and that person would be willing to be an active and voting member of the TC, we'd meet the requirements. Frank Wegmann, might you be willing
to serve as secretary? I got the sense when Carlos first brought up the fact that he would be leaving, that serving as co-chair was not something that you thought you could manager. Alan Houser? Would you be interested in stepping up?
-
Can the subcommittee commit to meeting at least once a month?
-
What work item's will the subcommittee focus on? Based on the report that Carlos gave to the TC on 26 October (see
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202111/msg00000.html), we got the sense that pursuing a LwDITA spec was no longer feasonable. The TC looked at whether updating the committee note was possible, but thought that would be the right route/too much
work and a lack of volunteers. On the TC meeting on 02 November (see
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/202111/msg00008.html), the TC floated the idea of getting a draft LwDITA spec into the OASIS process as a committee specification draft (after DITA 2.0), but then not advancing the LwDITA spec any further.