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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oiic-formation-discuss message

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

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

Hi folks,

  I just want to make sure I cover any questions raised about the OASIS TC Process and the requisite Charter template. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process-2008-02-05.php#formation

The "TC Formation" section presents a charter template that must be filled out in order to initiate the formation of a TC. The item in (1)(f) is part of that template.  It refers to the TC about to be formed, not to the discussion list that is trying to fill out the template. Therefore the words "The anticipated audience or users of the work" can be parsed only as referring to whatever the TC does once it is formed, not to the work of the discussion list. Thus, "anticipated" is anticipated by the writers of the charter in the context of what the charter says regarding its scope and deliverables, and the intention is "[the anticipated] _direct_ audience or users", not the indirect ones. In other words, if the TC produces a specification that can be implemented through software, the words "audience or users" refers to the audience for end users of the specification, not the audience for or users of the software that implements the specification.

An important part of charter writing is to make it easier to prospective members of the TC to decide whether to join it or not when it is announced; and later on to evaluate whether the TC has succeeded in fulfilling its goals.

Knowing whether the anticipated audience of a TC's output is composed of developers or government policy officials may make it easier to reach the first decision in some cases; knowing that a TC that was supposed to write something for the benefit of developers has ended producing narrative guidelines may make it easier to reach a conclusion regarding the second decision in other cases.



On 06/16/2008 02:30 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:
> 2008/6/16  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
>>> You don't need Pauls background to see the holes in that phrase.
>>> The following are questions btw.
>>> "The work" == the charter we write?
>>> Anticipated == anticipated by this group? The TC to be? who
>>> Audience or users == ... I can guess. Should I? Should we?
>>>   Go write a document. Its for users.
>>>   We can all interpret it. Differently.
>>> If it's so clear to you how about spelling out your understanding and
>>> see if you gain agreement
>>> (not that I've seen any call for consensus as yet).
>> Remember, this is a question that is answered in the charter of the proposed
>> TC.  Since we are not the TC (the TC does not yet exist) and the TC does not
>> produce the charter (the charter is made before the TC is formed) the phrase
>> should be read in that context.  I can so no other reasonable way of reading
>> it.
> That is illogical Rob.
> Discussion on the list is restricted to evaluating the interest in
> proposing a new OASIS TC, and defining the proposal for one or more
> new OASIS TCs. The list of subscribers to the discussion list shall be
> available to all subscribers. The discussion list shall automatically
> close 90 days after the Call For Participation is issued.
> Thats from Oasis process. IMHO that's what we should be following, not
> prior TC's.
> Hence we should be defining the proposal, not blindly accepting the
> content that the group of three wrote?
> Or do you disagree with that?
> regards

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