[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Workflow change
OpenC2 Technical Committee,
The TC processes that we adopted at our inaugural were designed with the very goals that Mr. Jordan has identified and in fact the current process is very similar to what is proposed here.
The current process (which we have only exercised once) is as follows:
· We have three subcommittees with very capable co-chairs who are working quite diligently on their respective problem spaces (Language, Actuator and Implementation).
· The subcommittees to provide updates at every TC meeting and an opportunity is provided for a dialogue at the TC level. This is also an opportunity for the subcommittee to request feedback and help.
· When the subcommittee reaches general consensus, the entire TC is notified and provided the draft.
· The subcommittee is expected to provide a recommendation, a minority report (if applicable) and document the gist of any dialogue that took place.
· The TC is asked to review the document. At this point, the TC is asked to either accept, reject or send it back to the subcommittee for further work and deliberations.
The main distinction between the current and the proposed is that the proposed process suggests that items such as the number and length of the comment periods and the mechanism for casting the vote is codified.
I am certainly in general agreement and open for discussion regarding matters such as definition of minimal comment periods and the like.
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