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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

emix message

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


Subject: Re: [emix] Not Allowed: Errata Committee Draft Creation / Upload Request for Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX) Version 1.0


EMIX TC members,

As follow up, I have this resolved with the Chair and editor and we
will be handling expeditiously via the normal workflow. Please let me
know if you have any questions.

/chet

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Paul Knight
<paul.knight@oasis-open.org> wrote:
> The following request has been submitted to the OASIS TC Administrator
> on Thursday, November 17, 2011 - 22:12
>
> Please note that this request does not conform to the OASIS Technical
> Committee Process, as established by the OASIS Board of Directors.
> The TC Process is QUITE CLEAR on the point that "Errata" may apply only to
> OASIS Standards.
> Please refer to the detailed comments below the request text.
> OASIS TC Administration regrets that we cannot process or publish the
> material referenced in this request.  An alternative course of action for
> the EMIX TC is suggested below.
> ***********************
> Submitter's Name: William Cox
> TC Name: Energy Market Information Exchange
> TC Email Address: emix@lists.oasis-open.org
> Work Product Title: Energy Market Information Exchange (EMIX) Version
> 1.0—Errata to Committee Specification 01
> Working Draft Number: WD01
> Working Draft URL:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=44383&wg_abbrev=emix
> Errata Committee Draft ##: 01
> Approval Link:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/44379/EMIX%2020111117%20Minutes%20Draft.docx
> Notes:
> See approval link for details. The errata to CS01 as approved are packaged
> as
> above. Note that these are errata to a Committee Specification. They
> have been
> approved as a Committee Specification Draft of errata and approved for 15
> day
> public review.
>
> The specification for EMIX CS01 (CSPRD04) with changes applied and
> diffmarks
> are in the archive as
> * http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=44373&wg_abbrev=emix
> (PDF with errata applied)
> * http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=44373&wg_abbrev=emix
> (DOC with errata applied)
> * http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=44371&wg_abbrev=emix
> (DOC with changes shown)
> Please contact wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com with any questions.
> ***************************
> This request for publication of "Errata" to a Committee specification is not
> allowed within the TC Process. Two very clear issues are noted below:
>
> (1) TC Process - Section 1 "Definitions" [1] item m.:
> ***********
>  - "Errata" means a set of changes or proposed changes to an OASIS Standard
> that are not Substantive Changes."
> ***********
>
> Note that "Errata" specifically refers to an OASIS Standard, NOT a Committee
> specification, or any other document.
>
> (2) TC Process - Section 3 "Approval Process" Introduction: [2]
> *************
> Aside from approving Administrative Documents, the only document approvals a
> TC may validly perform are described in this Section.
>
> Standards Track Work Products progress as follows:
>
> 1. Committee Specification Draft,
> 2. Committee Specification Public Review Draft,
> 3. Committee Specification,
> 4. Candidate OASIS Standard,
> 5. OASIS Standard,
> 6. Approved Errata.
> [...]
> Each of the progressions above must begin with step 1, and no step may be
> skipped. However a TC is not required to progress a Work Product from one
> step to the next.
> *************
> The "Approval Process" again makes it clear that there is no provision for
> "Errata" following a Committee Specification.
> Further, in Section 3.5 "Approved Errata", the association of Errata
> specifically with an OASIS Standard is mentioned six times.
> TC Administration is not able to support a Technical Committee in a course
> of action which is so clearly in contradiction to the TC Process.
> Note that the TC Process Section 4.2 describes the process for Appeals, in
> the case that the EMIX TC wishes to appeal to the OASIS Board of Directors.
>
> The suggested course of action is for the TC to approve a corrected Working
> Draft as a Committee Specification Draft, submit it for Public Review, and
> then approve it as a Committee Specification.
>
> [1] http://oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#definitions
> [2] http://oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#standApprovProcess
>
> Regards,
> Paul
> --
> Paul Knight  - Tel: +1 781-861-1013
> OASIS - Advancing open standards for the information society
> Document Process Analyst
>
>
>



-- 

/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-378-3472
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393

Follow OASIS on:
LinkedIn:    http://linkd.in/OASISopen
Twitter:        http://twitter.com/OASISopen
Facebook:  http://facebook.com/oasis.open


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