Subcommittee Reorganization - Focus

[duncan sfractal.com <duncan@sfractal.com>]

I am against reorganizing.

I still donât understand the reason for reorganizing.

The TC exists to create standards/committee-specifications/committee-notes. These are documents. I believe we should be organized around the documents we create.

 

The LSC is responsible for the language specification, the draft glossary, the draft architecture document, support for a language schema document (eg JADN).

The APSC is responsible for the SLPF spec and a plethora of other actuator profile specifications, one per actuator profile.

The ICSC is responsible for the HTTPS spec and a plethora of other transfer/transport specifications, one per transfer/transport. The ICSC is also responsible for the âimplementation considerationsâ like the draft âInformation Assurance Implementation Considerationsâ and the draft âOpenC2 Ecosystem Considerationsâ. The ICSC is also responsible for the github repos for opensource implementations of OpenC2.

 

I do not see how combining any 2 of these three changes the amount of work that needs to be done.

 

I agree with the points Michelle Barry made in her 17-Feb email about focus, meeting cadence, etc. These reasons argue against reorganizing.

 

The work is the work. It will take what it will take. I think either/both of two other solutions are better:

• Have meeting agendas with topics published prior to meeting. If no interest â cancel the meeting or have a perfunctory short meeting. SC meetings should be to review text and/or resolve differences on issues (ie decide between alternative versions of text and or create new hybrid text). Text should be developed by proponents offline
• Do away with SC meetings entirely and have TC âworking sessionsâ. We tried both originally and favored the SC meeting approach. Some other TCâs (notably CTI) kept their SC structure but went to TC working sessions. I still favor SC meetings but if we want to change then we should at least consider the working session approach.

 

 

Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info/

 

 

From: TC OpenC2 <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Joseph Brule <jmbrule@radium.ncsc.mil>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 1:09 PM
To: TC OpenC2 <openc2@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization

 

All,

 

A reorganization of the subcommittees was proposed during the January 2020 TC meeting.  The purpose of this email is to present the resolution, provide background information and initiate deliberations on the topic.  Once the deliberations are complete, Dave Lemire will generate an electronic ballot in accordance with the direction provided by the TC during the February TC meeting. 

 

NOTE:  Review the deliberations and if you believe that I did not capture the point correctly in the summary of the deliberations then provide the correction and/or provide additional points.  If there is an error, then accept that it was an honest mistake on my part. 

 

FURTHER NOTE:  SLACK messages are not available to all our members. I will attempt to transfer any SLACK messages to the oasis email relay, but it is preferred if you use this email as the medium for deliberations. 

 

RESOLVED:  The OpenC2 Technical Committee shall form a new subcommittee to be known as the âLanguage and Architecture Subcommitteeâ.  Upon formation of the new subcommittee, the âLanguage Subcommitteeâ and the âImplementation Considerations Subcommitteeâ shall transfer their activities to the new subcommittee. 

 

  Background

         A proposal to transfer the activities of the LSC and ICSC to a new SC was proposed during the January Monthly TC

         The general consensus was to revisit the issue after the Plug Fest and email deliberations

         Objections were raised during the February Monthly TC meeting. 

         There was general consensus with the approach of continuing the deliberations via email and upon conclusion of the email deliberations a decision will be made via electronic ballot.

  After the Plug Fest, the proposed new subcommittee was brought up via email.

         The net effect is to combine the LSC and ICSC into a single subcommittee

         The AP SC will maintain its current tempo and leadership

         Objections to the proposal were made known via email on Feb 18, 2020.

  Summary of Deliberations

         Statement FOR

         Level of effort required to revise and maintain is substantially less than the initial draft

         The scope of the LSC and IC-SC are at a 'systems' or âarchitecturalâ level while the scope of the AP-SC is at a 'component' level therefore logical to combine the 'system' or 'architectural' tasks in one subcommittee and the 'component' tasks in a separate subcommittee

         The results of the Plug Fest seem to validate the proposal in that the vast majority of the issues identified were component level

         Statement AGAINST

         Should retain separate subcommittees to retain their focus and maintain separation of concerns

         Several (structured) subcommittees permit attendees to focus their attention on their areas of interest and expertise and avoid diluting the meeting.

         Rebuttal to the statement AGAINST

         No rebuttal offered

         Rebuttal to the statement FOR

         The reduced workload is more appropriately addressed by changing the cadence of the meeting rather than broaden the scope of the subcommittee. 

         Do not agree that the current Language and IC-SC are more similar to each other, in fact [one individual] thinks that the AP-SC has more in common with the LSC than the IC-SC. 

 

 

Joe Brule

Engineering (Y2D122)

FNX-3, B4A335

410.854.4045

'Adnius ad retinedam puritem noster peciosus corporalis fluidorumâ'

I welcome VSRE emails.  Learn more at http://vsre.info/