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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emergency message

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

Subject: Update: TC Meeting Notes Re: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVEComments (EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded

Hi Sukumar, Everyone,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, but I found the Meeting 
Notes where HAVE and RM were reported to be on the next and future 
EM-Msg SC Agendas: Approved Meeting Notes 1-20-09.doc 

Item 4: Other SC reports.
a.Msg/Not.  Rex reports that the next SC meeting will be after the TC 
meeting Feb 3.  The main agenda item will be to discuss HAVE and RM. 
The good work Tim and Camille did at the NIMS-SC identified some 
errors in the Standard.  These do not appear to be substantive and 
should be able to be corrected with an erratum.  This will be the 
focus of the next Msg/Not SC meetings.

The progress of this work is recorded in the EM-MSg SC Meeting Notes 
EM-MSG Draft Meeting Notes 02-10-09 

We have not revisited this work since then due to the necessity of 
dealing with the TC's rejection of our proposed recommendation for 
CAP Next Gen work.

That said, I have no objection to restarting the process using the 
spreadsheet Sukumar posted, especially if he is willing to update and 
maintain the spreadsheet while we go through issues. Since he has 
recommended dispositions, the work should go fairly quickly, though I 
doubt we'll get through the entire set in one meeting. Also, I would 
volunteer to redo the DOM using Enterprise Architect and ensuring 
that legibility is clear an unequivocal.

Elysa, this should be on the TC agenda, along with our revised 
recommendation for CAP Next Gen, which I expect may also need to be 
revisited, though I would dearly appreciate being wrong about that.

Nevertheless, as I will note in a separate post to the EM Msg SC, we 
will be meeting after the TC Meeting. If the TC decides that we can 
take this up in the EM Msg SC, we will discuss this further in that 


At 6:27 AM -0800 3/7/09, Rex Brooks wrote:
>You make some good points Sukumar,
>Sorry for the length of these emails. You may have missed the TC 
>meeting(s) when I raised the topic of responding to the NIMS SC 
>issues. When I get some time to check for it, I will send along the 
>url for the meeting notes, but it was discussed in the TC.
>My point with regard to the spreadsheet is that it is not something 
>we have done before. I think that it is just easier to keep this new 
>process clearly distinct from the previous process of tracking 
>comments for the Public Reviews if these post-approval issues are 
>We always have the previous Issues Lists to refer to, but once the 
>post-approval comments are included, it becomes difficult for anyone 
>who is not familiar with the history to understand how the issues or 
>comments relate to the TC process, and that is not evident simply 
>from the date. Let's remember that we keep these records for public 
>transparency as much as for our own reference, and I think this 
>practice just makes easier to get confused. As far as that goes, 
>I've done similar things, like using a second worksheet to track 
>meeting attendance and dating responses to use the spreadsheet for 
>the purpose of recording meeting notes. As I understand the TC 
>process, we are allowed such freedom in SCs.
>I agree, putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is definitely 
>non-trivial, and I thank you for that. In fact, the time and effort 
>of doing that is the reason why I didn't do that myself. I preferred 
>to review the submitted documents from NIMS SC at least once to get 
>an idea of what process is most appropriate and form a 
>recommendation to the TC, while keeping track of our discussions in 
>our meeting notes.
>Of course, now that these issues are in speadsheet form, there is no 
>reason not to use it to keep track of our discussions, after we have 
>discussed how best to conduct even this initial review in the TC.
>There's actually an issue in here for the TC to consider beyond this 
>specific instance. Most of our specifications deal with messaging, 
>which is specifically part of the Messages and Notification SC. I 
>have several times now suggested having certain tasks, such as 
>developing EDXL-HAVE conducted either at the TC level or, with a new 
>SC such as the CAP Profiles SC. I have previously suggested that CAP 
>Next Gen be undertaken by a new SC. The reason for this has been to 
>avoid confusion and to even-out the workload so that one SC is not 
>overburdened. I doubt we want to become sticklers about this because 
>it is the work that is important, more important than the process. 
>However the process needs to be clear and help accomplish the work.
>We investigated standing up task-specific groups, but, if my memory 
>serves, OASIS does not support that kind of workgroup at the TC 
>level. I think we are free to do that at the SC level, but if we 
>don't have enough participation due to the fact that one must join 
>an SC in order to participate in a task group, its a moot point.
>So we need to discuss how best to conduct the next batch of 
>specifications, revisions, Errata, etc.
>At 12:00 AM -0500 3/7/09, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:
>>Obviously, its a long email to respond...
>>You are making quite a few assumptions that are not correct. I did 
>>not imply that this should not be done in a group nor that 
>>everything should be done in a single vote - obviously, that's 
>>I am not sure I understand the logic of not compiling all the 
>>comments first - we have done that as a first step for all the 
>>standards and I hope we continue to follow that process.
>>Finally, just putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is a non 
>>trivial issue - my opinion is that it will be easier to have all 
>>comments at one place - clearly, you can track everything since 
>>they will be related and may have been discussed before. You can 
>>easily track issues that were past the approval - the date column 
>>should help you with it. And you can filter the column to see the 
>>open issues. If you want to create a separate spreadsheet, please 
>>do so.
>>I am happy to discuss - I was not aware that you were discussing it 
>>in the SC nor recollect being mentioned in the last TC meeting. As 
>>I mentioned in my email, the spreadsheet would be a starting point 
>>for the discussions.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
>>To: Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL; emergency@lists.oasis-open.org 
>>Sent: Fri Mar 06 17:44:27 2009
>>Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments 
>>(EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded
>>Hi Sukumar,
>>We in the EM-Msg SC were going through the 28 (37 if you count the
>>lettered sub issues) issues submitted by the NIMS Support Center
>>after EDXL-HAVE was approved as an OASIS Standard.
>>We were considering only those and going through them one by one
>>without putting them into a spreadsheet yet so that we could make a
>>recommendation to the TC on how to resolve these post-approval
>>issues, e.g. an Errata or a v1.1.
>>I'm a little confused by including these new issues with the issues
>>resolved before  the approval process. I know we didn't take this
>>work on as an SC, but we wanted to address them as part of addressing
>>both RM and HAVE so that the NIMS Support Center folks would know
>>that their concerns with both were being addressed. Obviously we did
>>not know that you were compiling them into a spreadsheet or taking
>>personal responsibility to propose resolutions.
>>We should probably take this up in the TC. I would feel a lot better
>>if this were done by a group rather than just one person. Also, as
>>diligent and careful as you are, I think there are just too many to
>>accept them as a group with some kind of single vote on all at once.
>>I think each resolution needs to be processed through a group.
>>For instance, the DOM is more than difficult to read, it is not
>>sufficiently legible and needs to be redone, regardless of the fact
>>that the schema is normative. To be honest, even if few of these
>>issues warrants a revision, until a group has gone through them one
>>by one, I won't have enough confidence to recommend either an Errata
>>or v1.1.
>>So I think we should discuss how to address these issues in the next
>>TC meeting. I would appreciate it if we could have only the new open
>>issues in a separate spreadsheet.
>>At 9:59 PM +0000 3/6/09, sukumar_dwarkanath@sra.com wrote:
>>>I have added the comments from NIMS SC and have reviewed it. As a starting
>>>point, I have provided a proposed resolution for each comment which we can
>>>discuss and finalize. All the comments are editorial in nature and I think
>>>can be fixed with an errata.
>>>   -- Sukumar Dwarkanath
>>>The document named EDXL HAVE Comments (EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) has
>>>been submitted by Sukumar Dwarkanath to the OASIS Emergency Management TC
>>>document repository.
>>>Document Description:
>>>List of comments on EDXL-HAVE
>>>View Document Details:
>>>Download Document:
>>>PLEASE NOTE:  If the above links do not work for you, your email application
>>>may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to copy and paste
>>>the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
>>>-OASIS Open Administration
>>Rex Brooks
>>President, CEO
>>Starbourne Communications Design
>>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>>Berkeley, CA 94702
>>Tel: 510-898-0670
>Rex Brooks
>President, CEO
>Starbourne Communications Design
>GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
>Berkeley, CA 94702
>Tel: 510-898-0670
>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:

Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-898-0670

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