Review process

I spent some quality time with section 3 of the TC process document https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process

The instructions are quite clear.

One question we will need to consider is whether we intend to formally review and publish our non-normative documents. Technically we don't have to but if we do, then we must follow all the steps in sections 3.1 to 3.3. Other than that, pretty straightforward. In the notes below I've left out a lot of the details regarding how to do the voting. I'll have to review them prior to any votes to make sure we follow the process. I think that we can be done up to 3.3 by end of January. This assumes we start 3.2 by late-November, 30 days review, 15 day to revise, 15 days second review, 7 days to get our submission ready for 3.4. The main uncertainties are the Statements of Use (which has to be ready prior to 3.4) and of course our authoring activities which could go beyond late November.

Here are my notes (I only went up to 3.4.1 since there's no need to investigate further yet)

· Steps:

1. Committee Specification Draft,

2. Committee Specification Public Review Draft,

3. Committee Specification,

4. Candidate OASIS Standard,

5. OASIS Standard,

6. Approved Errata.

· Figure out whether we intend to publish non-standards track (guidance docs, eg.) for review. If so then we have to follow the same steps as standards track

· All steps require TC votes

· 3.1

o Formal internal review requires Full Majority vote (50%+1 of all voting members)

o No minimum time for review, can be re-submitted as many times as needed

· 3.2

o we need to come up with a list of external stakeholders who may wish to review the draft

o Comments from non-TC Members must be collected via the TC's archived public comment facility - See instructions for commenting at https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=oslc-core and archive at https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oslc-core-comment/

o Initial review must be at least 30 days. Each subsequent review of the draft must be at least 15 days

o Must do another review cycle if there is at least one Material modification to the draft

o Each re-review must clearly indicate the changes that were made from the previous draft

· 3.3

o TC must issue a resolution to approve the specification draft as a Committee Specification

o The TC Chair must then ask the TC Administrator to set up a Special Majority Vote

o 2/3 of voting members must approve, no more than 1/4 of voting members may vote against it

o If any comments were received in the last review cycle then vote must be at least 7 days after closing the review

o If any non-material comments were received in the last review cycle then the committee must demonstrate to the TC Administrator that the changes were not material

· 3.4

o Requires 3 Statements of Use referencing the Committee specification (3.3)

o Also requires a bunch of paperwork which is to be submitted to the TC Administrator when initiating the public review

o TC must resolve to have a Special Majority Vote to submit the Candidate OASIS Standard

o Review requires at least 60 days

oslc-core message