[legalxml-courtfiling] RE: (legalxml-courtfiling) Proposed Process forSpecificatio

[Steve.Spohn@jud.ca.gov]

On behalf of the California Administrative Office of the Courts, including Tom
Smith, these suggested modifications seem reasonable to us.

Steve Spohn
AOC/IS Division - CEFTS Program
Technical/Business Analyst
steve.spohn@jud.ca.gov
(415) 865-7424 [voice]
(415) 865-7498 [fax]

-----Original Message-----
From: "Winters; Roger" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV> at Internet
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:04 AM
To: "Court Filing List (E-mail)"
<legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org> at Internet
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] 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]