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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

openc2 message

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

Subject: Re: [openc2] Workflow change



Allan Thomson,

CTO, Lookingglass Cyber Solutions

This electronic message transmission contains information from LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. which may be attorney-client privileged, proprietary and/or confidential. The information in this message is intended only for use by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.  If you believe that you have received this message in error, please contact the sender, delete this message, and be aware that any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents contained within is strictly prohibited



From: <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of "Jyoti Verma (jyoverma)" <jyoverma@cisco.com>
Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 1:15 PM
To: Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>, "openc2@lists.oasis-open.org" <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [openc2] Workflow change


I agree with Bret’s suggestion.







From: <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Bret Jordan <Bret_Jordan@symantec.com>
Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 12:03 PM
To: "openc2@lists.oasis-open.org" <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [openc2] Workflow change




I would like to see us adopt a slightly different process for work in this TC.


I would be in favor of making sure more of the TC as a whole is involved and understands the work that is being done in a SC, since the TC, not the SC, is the group that actually votes on documents.


I would like to see us adopt a process of. 

1) The SC works on content or a document until they think it is done and ready for prime time


2) At this point the SC would inform the broader TC that they have a document that they would like the broader TC to review.


3) A two to three comment period would be opened up for the whole TC to review and comment.  


4) The SC will take the comments and feedback and rework the document. This process would then rinse and repeat until there is no more substantive comments in the document.


5) Once all substantive comments are resolved, then an electronic ballot would be opened to give people one last two week period to review before they vote.


I would like to make sure we are more inclusive and that we try harder to get more people to review it.  Having 5-8 people review it in working calls is NOT equal to TC consensus.  Further, doing a simple up/down vote on a full call without ample time to review is a keen to trying to ram rod the standard through the process.  








Sent from my Commodore 128D

PGP Fingerprint: 63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447  F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050

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