From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
To: EML TC <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: Laurent Liscia <laurent.liscia@oasis-open.org>; Mary McRae <mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January, 2009 19:08:15
Subject: [election-services] Progress and EML submission status for ISO/IEC JTC1: questions for TC
Members of the Election & Voter Services TC:
SUMMARY: We have several options for how best to respond,
and adapt, to significant changes in ISO/IEC JTC1's
procedures and plans. We must make a tactical decision about
accelerating, changing or decelerating the OASIS
submission
of EML v5.0. We would appreciate hearing the opinions of TC
members about these issues.
As you know, with your approval, we submitted EML v5 to ISO/IEC JTC1
late last year for its approval as an ISO/IEC standard). JTC1 "PAS"
(Publicly Available Specification) rules permit it to bring in
specifications approved by accredited external groups and
essentially endorse them by a re-approval ("transposition"). A
number of standards have completed this process successfully, and
OASIS has been an accredited PAS submitter since 2004.
JTC1 was slow to respond to our EML submission, but is now ready to
submit our work to its members (over 35 voting national standards bodies) for a vote. However, at the same time, we've run into significant changes in the expectations of JTC1 members about the way that a standard is controlled and maintained *after* its transposition
approval. Recent
events give us some concern that the terms of submission we proposed, with your approval, may need to be changed, in order for the vote to succeed. Please note, the uncertainty is about the "ground rules" going forward for further revision of the standard, and *not* any dispute about the substance of your work today.
As described below, it's our advice that the TC consider modifying our OASIS terms of submission, to anticipate JTC1's changed expectations. Four options and our recommendation are described below; we request your input.
BACKGROUND
I put a detailed background discussion in the next, separate e-mail, so that this one focuses on action. Here's the very short version: JTC1 is re-examining and rewriting its own rules, about maintenance of outside submissions, very slowly. There's been controversy about this. There's still a high degree of mutual trust and regard between JTC1's
members and OASIS. But at the same time, they are struggling to re-define their rules for submissions, and we don't want EML to get caught in the downdraft of uncertainty.
Our default position is that the OASIS TC who creates a submitted standard continues to control it, and sets its own schedule for taking in feedback from JTC1, and bringing major completed revisions back to JTC.
As described in the background summary post, that position has run into some resistance. We're concerned that any new submission sent in blindly with the same terms would be rejected, now, based on the procedural issues. In the current standards politics environment, there are three new factors:
* We are in mid-negotiation with JTC1 about possible alternative collaborative maintenance methods.
* JTC1 as a community has both an unclear, under-revision set of rules for external submissions, and a genuine
ambivalence about those submissions.
* Finally, within OASIS, our own Board and management are re-examining how best to handle external submissions.
(Details in the background post.) The third point is unlikely to affect the EML submission, as OASIS already approved it and sent it on to JTC1 in mid-2008, before we started to re-examine our own processes. But the first two points will weigh heavily on EML. .
ACTIONS
It's our hope that OASIS, by being a good citizen in this environment, will help define mutually satisfactory and constructive solutions. But we still face the immediate question of how to handle the EML submission. Right now, it's in JTC1's hands as we originally submitted it, after your TC reviewed the draft, with the same basic terms as we used for ODF v1.0. See the attached "Appendix A" document, which comes from that submission.
OASIS has four options I
can see. Input from the TC would be helpful to us on which is best.
1. We simply could have the submission balloted now, as is, by the new JTC1 leadership, who's apparently happy to launch it at any time. My personal guess, but it's only a guess, is that it would attract significant opposition, because of the unresolved issues in the JTC1 polity about maintenance. Regardless of the work itself.
2. We could submit it now, but after an amendment adding what we think might be acceptable terms. In the attached copy of "Appendix A", I've inserted some possible draft changes. These would require some commitments from the TC, as you can see, so they would need to be acceptable to you. It has the virtue of moving faster; and the vice of being uninformed by whatever our conversations with JTC1 will be in the next 30 days. Personally I think option 3 is wiser.
3. We could hold the
submission back for 30 days, and see if either our first round of conversations, in late January, or the March conclusion mentioned in the resolution, will let us more reliably refine the proposed changes set out in option 2 and the attached markup. In that way, we'd be sending in something better informed by JTC1 expectations. This is my first preference, tactically, though the views of others, including the TC and our management and Board, also may weigh in.
4. Finally, we could send EML somewhere other than JTC1. Frankly, choosing another forum is a strong move. I don't think it's off the table, as it's hard to say how the PAS process will fare over the long run. However, OASIS probably is in the best position of any consortium, given our good will and track record, to make PAS work. In my view we ought to do so. Thus, turning to another authority for this work at this time probably is
premature.
Now, none of the foregoing obviate the fact that the great work you have done, within OASIS, manifestly deserves the further promotion and higher profile, and has been languishing for all this "politics". I apologize again to you, for both the situation, and our inability so far to break logjams to advance it more rapidly. Still, we try not to let our good work be rejected or fail elsewhere. It's possible that we were right, that only a negative outcome could have resulted from this interregnum and re-appraisal period.
We'd appreciate feedback from the members of the Committee on these options (and any others you see). Among other things, the TC's views on whether the early draft of "appendix A" revisions seems like a plausible way forward. We'd also be happy to join you at a TC meeting if further discussion or questions would be helpful.
Kind regards and best wishes for a successful and safe new
year. Jamie Clark
~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director of Standards Development, OASIS
~
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark---------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php