OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [office] The public review has ended. What next?

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, robert_weir@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Michael Brauer <michael.brauer@oracle.com> wrote on 03/03/2011 04:29:31
> AM:
>> So, since the CSD07/CSPRD03 public review was a follow-up public
>> review, it was limited in scope to the changes we made since the
>> last public review. It is also limited in time to the start and the
>> end of the public review.
>> After having a closer look at the above issues, none seems to be in
>> the submitted during the public review, and is within its scope.
>> This shall not mean that we should not reolve them, but only that we
>> are not bound to the 7-day  waiting period before we can request
>> the  CS ballot, and that we do not need a disposition report for PRD03.
> The rules are not very clear in this.

Rob, you have a good eye.  I thank you and Michael for
managing the TC at such a high level WRT the TC Process
(management of motions/ballots, respecting other rules).

A couple comments below, with caveat that in several
cases where I (myself) have claimed that the Process is
underspecified and (hence) ambiguous or otherwise unclear,
I've been told: "hey, everyone knows what we mean;
it's common sense, they will figure it out..."   YMMV.

> Section 3.2 says:
> "The initial public review of a public review draft must take place for a
> minimum of 30 days, and any subsequent reviews must be held for a minimum
> of 15 days. Changes made to a committee draft after a review must be
> clearly identified in any subsequent review, and the subsequent review
> shall be limited in scope to changes made in the previous review."
> The odd part of that is the phrase "shall be limited in scope...".  Who is
> that a requirement on?  The public?  Or us?

I think the intent is that the requirement is "on"
everyone, initially, viz., to limit review and comment
to the changes made since the previous review.  In
the first place, that limits review by both the TC Members
and any other reviwers who are not TC Members (Observers,
OASIS members who are not TC Members, the public,
extraterrestrials, or whoever is capably of reviewing
and sending feedback).  That's because comments can come
from TC Members and non TC Members:


3.2. Public Review of a Committee Draft

"Comments from non-TC Members must be collected via
the TC's archived public comment facility; comments
made through any other means (unless made by a TC
Member via the TC email list) shall not be accepted."

taken with:

2.8 TC Visibility

"Comments shall be publicly archived, and shall be
forwarded to one or more Members of the TC including
the TC Chair. TCs shall not be required to respond
to comments. 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."

And tangentially also in 3.2"

"If any changes are made to the draft after the public
review, **whether as a result of public review comments
or from TC Member input**, then the TC must conduct
another review cycle.


It's possible that comments/feedback from any source might
be out of order, being irrelevant or not within the scope
of changes made in the previous review.  That determination
will be made by the TC Members, who need to create a
disposition on potentially several levels, including the
question of relevance (e.g., being in scope).

> And section 3.3 says:
> "After the public review, the TC may approve the Committee Specification
> Draft as a Committee Specification or the Committee Note Draft as a
> Committee Note. If any comments have been received during the most recent
> Public Review period, that vote may not commence any earlier than 7 days
> after the last day of that Public Review."
> So it says "if any comments have been received during the most recent
> Public Review..." not "if any comments in scope have been received..."

Here's my unofficial commentary on the intent [unofficial because
any interpretation I give may be incorrect, prima facie, or
ruled incorrect by someone having authority to adjudicate an
arguable case]

"If any comments have been received during the most recent Public Review period"
means exactly what it says ("any comments", not "any in-scope and otherwise
relevant comments") because there's a perceived need to respect
all comments by giving them time for consideration.  The alternative could be,
though not likely, that the last public review would end
on June 15, 11:45 PM, and the TC could have a prepared disposition
document ready which declares each comment irrelevant, out-of-scope,
or otherwise inconsequential, and (being in session) vote to call for
CS ballot (notify the TC Administrator) within the early minutes
of June 16.  Unlikely: of course.  But the TC Process says "No,
you have to wait 7 days" (out of respect for comments, as plausibly
representing valid feedback that should motivate further change).

> I think we generally receive comments, and some are in scope, and some are
> not.  But whether any comment triggers the 7-day delay, or whether only
> "in scope" comments trigger that, is not clear to me.  I think "any" could
> refer to "in scope" and "out of scope" comments.  But I could be wrong...

I think you are correct: "any comments" means "any comments".

> In any case, who decides whether a comment is in scope or note? I think
> that determination is best made by the consensus of the TC where possible,
> or a vote if necessary.

Yes: the TC members decide, as they do on other facets of evaluation,
which all roll up into the disposition for each "comment".  As you
illustrate below.

Thanks to you and Michael for providing clarifications to the TC
about the process.

  - Robin

> So I'd still recommend that discuss this on
> Monday and record our decision in the minutes as a "disposition of
> comments report", even if we simply list the comments received and say for
> each one, "Not in scope of public review" or "Deferred to ODF 1.2 Errata
> 01" or "TC member proposal for ODF 1.3" or similar.
> We could also seek clarification from OASIS on this, but my guess is that
> would take more than 7 days.
> -Rob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]