Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Level of detail needed in a TC Charter

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

2008/6/13  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:

>
>> > That is how I read it as well.  (1)(f) asks us to list "the anticipated
>> > audience or users of the work".  So this is those who will directly
>> > consume,
>> > use, read, etc., the deliverables of the TC, not the larger list of
>> > those
>> > parties who may indirectly benefit.  Obviously in our work, we can and
>> > should be mindful of these other parties, but that doesn't need tobe in
>> > the
>> > response of (1)(f).
>> >
>> > -Rob
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you'd like to phrase something for this groups output Rob.
>> If you insist on that interpretation.
>> "Those who will consume, use, read etc" isn't a very tangible set of
>> users.
>>
>
> I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.  The definition given ("the
> anticipated audience or users of the work") is what OASIS gives us.  We have
> no ability to change that.  I'm suggesting an interpretation that seems
> obvious enough to me.

Which is exactly my point. We are writing for an as yet, unformed group.
What you understand, I understand is irrelevant. We need these items
documenting clearly or nothing will get through clearly.
Michaels definition of 'imp


>
> It might help to take a look at some of the dozens of existing and approved
> TC charters for the many succesful OASIS TC's
> (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/committees.php).  They do not have
> elaborate definition chapters.  In fact most of the charters can fit on one
> side of a post card.
>
> Remember we're not drafting a RFP.  We're making a fair disclosure of the
> range of activities that the proposed TC would like to undertake.  The
> important audience of the charter includes:
>
> 1) OASIS (to ensure that what we're doing is within bounds of what OASIS
> TC's are permitted to do)
>
> 2) Prospective members (so they know what our TC is doing and whether they
> should join)
>
> 3) Other standards committees and organizations (so they know what we're
> doing and whether they should track our work, propose liaisons, etc.)
>
> As a practical matter, the TC, when created, can undertake items within
> scope of its charter.  Note that this is an issue of scope.  We're not
> required to note in the charter every little nuance of every little step
> that we might undertake.  In fact, there is danger that if we attempt to do
> this we'll hamstring the TC by removing any flexibility they have in
> pursuing alternate approaches to the same problem.  We only have a few weeks
> to create a charter.  The TC will have months, years even to do the
> underlying work.
>
> Of course, a charter that merely says "To produce such works as serve the
> betterment of humanity" would be over-broad and cause its own problems.  We
> need to be reasonable.
>
> Again, look at the existing OASIS TC charters and see what the typical level
> of detail is.  I think the TC would benefit from the broadest reasonable
> charter that we can give them.  I don't know what purpose would be served by
> withholding any reasonable approach to dealing with ODF interoperability, by
> giving them a too narrowly-crafted charter.
>
> If we're reached the point where we are debating the meaning of "consume"
> versus "read" versus "use" then I fear we are delving too deep.
>
> -Rob



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk