Re: [oasis-board-comment] Concerns from an OASIS member on the recent TC Process changes

[Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>]

On 28/09/2012 12:09 PM, Patil, Sanjay wrote:

Several smaller TCs have indicated that they know of multiple implementations of their Specifications but do not have sufficient capacity among the TCs members to satisfy the required number of Statements from OASIS members only.

Sanjay (and the OASIS Board of Directors),

Your response simply fails the address the issue raised - clearly lowering the bar makes it easier for a couple of TCs to proceed - and the driver for the process change was not the issue - what was being raised was that this bar is there for a reason and this change lowers one of the quality control mechanisms in place and one of the mechanisms whereby demonstrating membership support for a specification is a requirement - and I wanted to raise this issue as I don't think that the impacts of this change were necessarily considered when making the decision.

If a TC is unable to get sufficient support for three vendors to test amongst its membership then there is insufficient support at the level which should be (in my opinion and I'm not alone in this view) to justify becoming an OASIS specification.  The incentive to create broader OASIS membership should be the driver as that serves the organisations goals - not lowering the existing "bar" to having TC output qualify to proceed to an OASIS specification. Those requirements were put in place for good reason and I haven't seen any commentary about why the board feels that allowing a couple of smaller TCs to proceed balances the substantial reduction of member support requirements.

The statement of use process does not require that the OASIS member organisation actually implement the specification themselves - that has never been a requirement - just that the organisation "has successfully used" it. If you cannot get three TC members using a specification then it simply does not have enough support amongst the membership of the TC itself, let alone the wider OASIS membership. If there is broad industry support for a standard and there is not broad support amongst the OASIS membership then that is a clear demonstration that such a standard simply does not belong within OASIS. OASIS represents its membership and the interests of the membership are easily measured.

Quality control over OASIS specifications is a critical part of the OASIS process and relaxing the statement of use requirements as has been done will result in specifications proceeding that lack support and would have previously been precluded.

And on the topic of smaller TCs, we have TCs that are sufficiently small and sufficiently unsupported by the OASIS membership and the wider vendor community that they should be closed (a TC which stays below the Minimum Membership for two months should be automatically closed in my view - leaving that to the discretion of the TC Administrator as it is under the current process keeps TCs which do not have support from the OASIS membership operating). A demonstration of on-going support should be a requirement. As an organisation ensuring that there is support at least amongst the members for the output of the organisation should be the driver for the decision making process - not the number of technical committees or members.

If less than 3% of the existing TCs see this as an issue then changing the TC process which impacts the other 97% who have not indicated this is an issue seems like a step in the wrong direction - changing the balance which has served OASIS well up to this point.

Thanks,
Tim.