Subject: process and draft motion for the KMIP errata
Back in March, Chet provided the following guidance regarding the errata process:
“The way it works is this: you prepare the errata list document and optionally (though I strongly recommend it) a copy of the OS with the errata applied. You then pass a motion by Full Majority vote to confirm that the changes are do not constitute Substantive Changes and approve it as a Committee Spec Draft and to submit it to 15 day public review. After the public review (assuming you don't make any changes) you pass a motion by Full Majority vote to approve it as an Approved Errata. Then we'll publish it. “
In the call today, I’d like to suggest something like the following as a motion (if someone is willing to so move) for the TC to consider:
(name) moves that the co-chairs create a 10-day Full Majority Vote ballot to 1) confirm that the changes documented in “KMIP Errata V1.1 wd02” do not constitute substantive changes, 2) approve this document as Committee Specification Draft and 3) request the co-chairs to submit a request for a 15-day public review of this document.
I’d also like to get guidance from the TC on whether to create a new version of the OASIS Standard KMIP docs (that is, spec and profiles) with the errata applied, that OASIS can make available during the public review.
Talk to you soon!