[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Cloud Authorization (CouldAuthZ) TC - Appeal of TC formation
Greetings, I regret to inform you that I am appealing the formation of the CloudAuthZ TC. OASIS requires that responses to all comments on charters be posted before the call for participation is sent out for a TC. I posted comments on the CloudAuthZ charter: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-charter-discuss/201210/msg00027.html No pointers to resolution of those comments posted were before (or since) the call for participation: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/201210/msg00016.html The OASIS rule in question reads: The proposer group may amend their submission at any time until the 28th day after the submission (except that changes to the roster of proposers may occur at any time until the final posting). By the 28th day the proposer group must post a pointer to an account of each of the comments / issues raised during that review, along with its resolution.Take note of: By the 28th day the proposer group must post a pointer to an account of each of the comments / issues raised during that review, along with its resolution. OASIS TC Administrator must post them to the OASIS Membership with a Call For Participation and an announcement of a first meeting. "Them" clearly refers to the pointers and the revised charter. See the last two paragraphs at: https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process#formation. Consider two comments (out of many) that might influence your decisions to join this TC: 1) Where are the major cloud players? Where are Amazon, CISCO, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle? Aren't they interested in cloud computing? 2) Are we making up terms no one else uses? 2) "cloud contextual attributes as close as possible to Policy Enforcement Points" means something to the drafters but what it should mean to prospective members isn't clear. Pointers to comments and their "resolution" could alert potential members of problems with a TC and/or its charter. Hope everyone is having a great week! Patrick PS: I am posting this because it would be unfair to innocent TC members have invested time and effort, not knowing that the TC was flawed at its inception. PPS: The easiest course would be for everyone to skip the first meeting. The TC would lack "minimal membership" and therefore would die on its own. TC Process, 2.3 First Meeting of a TC At least Minimum Membership must become Voting Members at the first TC meeting or the TC shall be considered not to have been successfully started and shall be closed. TC Process, 1 Definitions (s) "Minimum Membership" means five Voting Members of a TC (or, in the case of a TC about to be formed, five Eligible Persons), at least two of which represent OASIS Organizational Members. -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]