Background re: steps for Energy Interoperation forwarding to the IEC

[William Cox <wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com>]

All --

To guide our discussion at our Workshop meeting this week and Regular meeting next week, I'm forwarding an email from Jamie Clark, OASIS' liaison chair, with wording from a recent forwarding agreement.

This gives the context, and OASIS' requirement to avoid forking the specification. I've emboldened the context-setting paragraph below.

I've also attached the recently approved ebXML request to forward their specifications to ISO as another example.  The direct URI is https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/52622/ebXML-submission-request-v4.pdf ; document is attached.

Thanks!

bill

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Re: FW: Next steps for Energy Interoperation forwarding to the IEC
Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:06:25 -0700
From:	Jamie Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>
To:	William Cox <wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com>, "Holmberg, David" <david.holmberg@nist.gov>
CC:	Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org>

David and Bill:

We deal with those kinds of issues in a "terms of submission" statement in our transmittals of submitted standards. (Separate "liaison agreements" or similar tend not to be a good vehicle for addressing the editing and licensing details of shared technical work.)

When OASIS sends a standard to an ISO, IEC or similar committee for its subsequent separate approval, we have (roughly) three options:  (a) limited permission to re-publish the whole thing, as is, only;  (b) permission to re-publish as-is, plus a commitment to mutually circulate and exchange approvals of any recommended changes, keeping a final revised version in lockstep so that both entities finally approve the same thing;  and (c) unlimited permission to take over editing and control all future versions.  Options (a) or (b) are appropriate to OASIS TCs who intend to continue working on the artifact;  option (c) is appropriate if an OASIS TC plans to close its work, and wholly turn over the pen to the recipient org.

(We're constrained to those choices because, as a policy matter, our rules require us to avoid unexpected forking -- where the OASIS TC might be working on a version 2 at the same time the exernal recipient is working on a *different* version 2, leading to confusion over which is the authorized and licensed version.)   

Attached is an example of option (b).  We used this approach on, among other things, the well-known and successful OpenDocument standard.  It resulted in several back-and-forth rounds between the OASIS TC and the recipient body, which served as an excellent vehicle for further improvements and collaboration on the eventual, co-published final artifact.

Cordially  JBC

   
James Bryce Clark, General Counsel
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php

William Cox <wtcox@coxsoftwarearchitects.com> wrote:

Jamie -

Do you have samples of as-used liaison agreements?

Are the liaison agreements publicly visible? (https://www.oasis-open.org/liaisons has descriptions but not the agreements.

Is the IEC PC118-OASIS liaison listed there as "IEC"?

Thanks!

bill
--

William Cox 

Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 

Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com 

+1 862 485 3696 mobile 

+1 908 277 3460 fax

Attachment: Liaison-submission-shared-revs-terms-form.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: Liaison-submission-shared-revs-terms-form.odt
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text

Attachment: ebXML-submission-request-v4.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document