[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [energyinterop] Energy Interoperation Public Review - proposed comment resolution - any objections?
3.4.2 Public Review of a Candidate OASIS Standard
…
Upon completion of the public review, the Chair must notify the TC Administrator of the results.
...
• If comments were received and only Non-Material Changes are to be made to the Candidate
OASIS Standard, the editor(s) will prepare a revised Candidate OASIS Standard. Changes
may only be made to address the comments. The TC must provide an acceptable summary
that is clear and comprehensible of the changes made and a statement that the TC judges the
changes to be Non-Material to TC Administration and request a Special Majority Vote to
proceed with the membership vote. TC Administration shall hold the Special Majority Vote
and announce it to the OASIS membership and optionally on other public mail lists along
with the summary of changes and the TC's statement. If the Special Majority
Vote passes, the TC Administrator must start the ballot for OASIS Standard approval
within 7 days of notification.
We can go over the mechanics but in a nutshell, the Non-Material Changes process now applies to the results of the 60 day public review. You can put forward a modified COS and request a Special Majority Vote to proceed with the membership vote.
Let me know if you want to talk about this further...
/chet
EITC --
We've finished the public review in the OASIS Standard process.
One comment received a few hours in advance of the formal public review period:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/energyinterop-comment/201401/msg00000.html
I agree that the comments are non-substantive. Though they arrived before the start of the Public Review, we should address them -- and the reference update will improve the specification.
It would be ideal if the "reference correction" process applied to OASIS standards (pre-publication) but so far as I know something like that is proposed but not effective. So here's the draft response:
Planned response:
We agree that these non-substantive changes improve the specification by updating references. The Technical Committee agrees that these will be addressed through the non-substantive change process in TC Process https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#errata .
Discussion:
If you object to this response, please reply to the list right away or call the chairs. We will notify TC Admin to start the ballot after submitting this comment log.
We plan to start the formal ballot the start of next week (May 13).
As this specification is intended to be submitted to the IEC in the near future, we may defer the errata process as it can only be done once in any six month period; we have also requested that the reference update request process available for OASIS Committee Specification Publication be applied in this case, possibly after pending OASIS Board action on process evolution.
Thanks!
bill
--
William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]