[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: So what happens in a public review?
The last public review we had on this TC was January 2007 I believe, with the review of ODF 1.1. So we have many TC members who have not been through the process before. And we also have new tools, like JIRA, that we did not have in the last round. So it is worth reviewing the requirements and how we might apply them in this case. OASIS TC Process 3.2 covers the public review ( http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.php#publicReview). Highlights are: 1) All public (non TC member) comments must come through the office-comment list. This preserves the IP pedigree of our work, since submissions via the comment list happen under the Feedback License ( http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/feedback_license.pdf). So if you hear a comment via email, or on Twitter or a blog or discussion forum elsewhere, please ask the author to submit the comment formally via the office-comment list. Instructions are here: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=office 2) Also note that according to TC Process 2.8, "The purpose of the TC?s public comment facility is to receive comments from the public and is not for public discussion" and "Comments to the TC made by Members of the TC must be made via the TC general email list, and comments made by non-TC members, including from the public, must be made via the TC?s comment facility. Comments shall not be accepted via any other means." So comments on the public review draft from TC members are made via the usual means (TC's mailing list, bringing up in a meeting, or preferably entered directly into JIRA) and not via the comment list. When you enter the issue in JIRA, classify the component as "Packaging". We can then track the public review comments as those that were assigned packaging between November 13th and January 12th. 3) The TC must acknowledge the receipt of each public comment. This occurs automatically, since we use an email reflector list. Each person who submits a comment will immediately receive a copy of the comment back to them via email. That is the acknowledgement. 4) We need to track all comments received. This will be done in JIRA. I have automation that will automatically transfer comments into JIRA from the office-comment list. This works best when we observe the prohibition against discussion on the comment list. Otherwise we will end up with extraneous comments in JIRA. 5) Sometime after the end of the review period (60 days) we need to publish the disposition of each comment. Typically, we propose dispositions on the list, or directly in JIRA, and then vote to approve the dispositions in a meeting. The dispositions are then published in the meeting minutes and that satisfies the requirement to publish dispositions. However, if there are more than a handful of comments we could also just minute that the comments are disposed as per their resolutions in JIRA, and then give their OFFICE-X numbers. Since all JIRA resolutions get echoed to the mailing list, this should meet the requirements as well. 6) We cannot make changes to the public review draft while the review is underway. However, that does not prevent us from making changes in a new numbered revision of the standard to address public comments as they are received. In fact this is a wise use of time. 7) We can have several cycles of public review to the extent we continue to make substantive changes to the text. We can discuss this more on Monday's call if anyone has questions, comments or concerns. Regards, -Rob