[legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed Process for Specifications

["Winters, Roger" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>]

Title: Proposed Process for Specifications

Hello,

The attached Word file is a proposal to the Court Filing Technical Committee (TC) on how it should process specifications (and other deliverables) through their stages of development. This is an approach I believe could bring us the disciplined methods and structure needed to keep our work moving while minimizing confusion.

I present this to the TC intending to move that we adopt these rules and procedures, with whatever modifications, additions, and deletions the TC desires. The draft includes provisions assigning responsibilities relative to drafting, setting review periods, incorporating and reporting on input received, and for handling specifications once they are "owned" by the TC. There may be holes here that you can help repair; there may be unnecessary steps you can point to as candidates for elimination. Counter-proposals, in whole or part, could also come forward.

I propose a review and comment period of 30 days, ending with the close of business on Monday, August 12, 2002. After that, input would be incorporated and a final draft (reporting on the disposition of all input) returned to the TC for final adoption. I believe the Co-Chairs of the TC should determine what the review period will actually be.

OVERVIEW: This proposal would require any specification (or other deliverable) to go through  distinct stages, using standard TC templates, topical Web pages devoted to all documentation related to the specification, and assuming the TC will use standard document management, numbering, and version control procedures. The stages would be:

        I. The Statement of Work -- A paper describing what is to be done, what it is about, by whom it would be done, for what purpose, and how the work relates to other work products or responsibilities of the TC. Approval by the TC gives a green light to applying resources to develop the work product.

        II. The Requirements Document -- Before specifications are drafted, their authors would prepare this for review and approval by the TC. Approval by the TC of a Requirements Document constitutes a charge to the specification drafters to write specifications to fulfill those requirements.

        III. The Candidate Specification -- This is the work product of a drafter or committee, submitted for review, modification, and approval by the TC. Once adopted by the TC, it becomes a "Proposed" Specification.

        IV. The Proposed Specification -- The TC's adoption of this indicates its belief the specification can be used, implemented, and tested. Its testing criteria would be specified in the specification itself. When testing is successfully completed, the TC could vote to move the specification to a "Recommended" status.

        V. Final Posting of Recommended Specification -- The Editor, Web master, and others who may be responsible for document management for the TC, would finalize the specification (not altering the substance) for posting and entry into the TC's "Trusted Repository." (We have a subcommittee working on that.) This brings the specification to completion within the TC. Changes and enhancements would be managed as new versions, updates, etc., applying the TC's standard methods for document management and version control.

        VI. Use of Recommended Specifications by Other Entities -- The TC might submit its specifications to OASIS for adoption as an OASIS standard. TC specifications might be taken to or taken up by court organizations, vendor groups, and others for consideration and adoption by those entities as proposed standards. The TC's role would be to facilitate cooperative efforts in standards development.

        VI. Rules and Procedures -- This section indicates how the TC would manage its rules and procedures, maintain a record of them (in the Repository), and so forth. It also includes a proposal for "grand-fathering" the specifications already completed (to the "Recommended" level) or that are already "in the pipeline" of the Court Filing group, from the days of Legal XML to the present OASIS Technical Committee. (For example, Court Filing 1.1 has, in effect, been adopted as a "Recommended" specification. Although its testing criteria will not be in the document itself (assuming no other rewrite is done), they could be posted as an addendum and they would guide the TC in a later decision on elevating Court Filing 1.1 to a "Recommended" level.)

This is a lengthy proposal. However, it is constitutional stuff for the TC. I think we need to be very clear about defining our processes, expectations, responsibility assignments, and so forth. If you are aware of existing OASIS or similar processes that have been tried and proven, please help us consider them as alternatives to all or part of this proposal.

I will be glad to answer questions about the proposal during the review and comment period, but I do not intend to get into a defense of it or any part of it. I will carefully note all input, so it can be accounted for after the close of review and comment.

Regards,

Roger
Court Filing TC Editor

Roger Winters
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County Department of Judicial Administration
MS: KCC-JA-0609
516 Third Ave., E-609
Seattle, Washington 98104-2386
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
Roger.Winters@metrokc.gov 

Words for Success in Any Group:
6 words: "I admit I made a mistake."
5 words: "You've done a great job!"
4 words: "What do you think?"
3 words: "Would you mind...?"
2 words: "Thank you!"
1  word: "We..."
0 words: [Listening]

 

Attachment: Proposed Procedures for Court Filing TC Deliverables.doc
Description: MS-Word document