Re: [pbd-se] Groups - pbd-se-v1_0-wd06 clean copy.docx uploaded

Hi Stuart:

If one looks at the 40 or so document uploads to Kavi, you will see that the characterization of progress only in the last fortnight is vastly incorrect. We may have received written feedback from some TC members in the last month, but the heavy lifting was done over many many months, and many meetings of this TC.

When we chartered the TC, we set an 18 month milestone at June 2014. The progress you see has been made in two intense stages. The first intense stage was from Revision 1 to 3. The next intense stage has been ongoing since February across Revision 4. Revision 5 was mainly a spilt of that substantial work in two documents. Revision 6 contains the disposition of comments and edits.

I am puzzled as to why there is a question around our attempt to move privacy work that OASIS administration and others have been calling substantial for months forward in the OASIS process. We have been clear as to our intent and timelines from Day 1.

Kind regards,

Dawn.

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Shapiro, Stuart S. <sshapiro@mitre.org> wrote:

First, kudos to everyone for the work that has been put into the document(s) over the last week. I feel both guilty and somewhat relieved to have been otherwise occupied.

However, let me ask a question that has been in the back of my mind for several weeks now. Why are we in such a desperate hurry to push this to the CSD stage? I simply fail to understand the intense urgency with which this step is being pressed. Is there some vital deadline that we’re in danger of missing? While I appreciate the desire for progress, and considerable progress has been made over the last fortnight, I feel like I’m missing some key piece of information. Is there a specific reason why this step is being pushed so hard?

Stuart

On Jun 24, 2014, at 7:09 AM, Dawn Jutla <dawn.jutla@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Frank and TC members:
>
>
> I would like to bring up a few more aspects to our present discussion.
>
>
> I asked OASIS administration to take a look at our draft several weeks ago to which it positively responded. The Introduction as laid out is not in violation of any of OASIS rules, or its spec template. Our future standard addresses privacy governance and closes a well-known communication gap between policy makers, business, and technologists, whereas the large majority of OASIS existing standards are purely technical. Therefore our goals (and that of OASIS TCs dealing with Transformational Government for example) may introduce new ways of looking at things. I don't have to say that your Chairs are not from the usual milieu of OASIS TC chairs. Diversity is not a bad thing.
>
>
> This TC is proposing to change the way software engineers work. Traditionally, change has been more difficult for those in management than the software engineers themselves. The SE field demands continual change so software engineers are used to change. All software engineers I know are bright and enjoy learning. As we further develop our work in coming months, I hope that we will provide a pedagogical resource (Annex) and a specification that positively propels the profession towards embracing privacy and security in the mainstream.
>
>
> This TC’s work adds one more tool for people in the present and future software engineering workforce to support privacy preservation of online societies, and to affect the future of the next generation of citizens in positive ways. It may be naïve to think that this goal may be larger than companies’ profit margins, but being labeled wonderfully naïve in order to affect positive change may not be that off-putting to this TC's members. Service is not a bad thing.
>
>
> The field of privacy is immature. Privacy engineering practice is immature. The goals of this TC’s work are not to reify current privacy engineering practice. The work we have done to date as a TC provides a substantial glimpse of big picture for Privacy by Design and software engineering that has never been provided before. That is valuable service in itself to the mainstream software industry. The TC's widely signalled intent to release its first CSD to meet its first milestone is why we have been meeting weekly for the last 3 weeks.
>
>
> I back my co-Chair Commissioner Cavoukian's proposal that we consider the Revision 6 draft we have submitted as a first CSD tomorrow. Afterwards, I propose that we proceed to have further substantial discussions as a TC, including levels of PbD-SE conformance and RFC 2119 keywords usage, and address Frank’s preference for wording etc. for the second CSD update.
>
>
> With thanks for your kindest consideration.
>
> Dawn.
>
>
>
> P.S. Frank, the definition of a software organization, in the spec's Terminology section, is not as restrictive as interpreted. The definition includes units within all organizations that directly or indirectly engineer software. We can put more wording for busy readers in future. Anyway, let's move such disposition to a second CSD version. With much appreciation for your valuable contributions, D.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 8:24 PM, <frank.dawson@nokia.com> wrote:
> Chairs and TC members.
>
>
>
> Please find my review comments on the WD6 of the PbD-SE working draft.
>
>
>
> These are substantial comments that need adequate discussion. That would require others in the TC to also have time to review these comments.
>
>
>
> I have not had time to review the Annex document. Unfortunately, most of this week, I am involved in privacy policy work and unable to dedicate much time to review the Annex.
>
>
>
> Frank/
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

pbd-se message