[plcs] Proposed Organisation document

["Rutland, Phil" <ils-dm@a.dii.mod.uk>]

I agree the <repsonse>'s from Chris. I had started to formulate my own but
Chris was quicker. I would, however, like to add to the funding debate.

Funding is a key issue that will have to be resolved if we are to progress
AP239 in any meaningful way. Not just the core/secretariate functions but
also 'strategic' elements of an implementable AP239 must be funded. These
include development of DEX's, production of a reference data library
function policy statements, and others. OASIS is a voluntary organisation so
subscriptions are not an option but I beleive that we could agree, within
the voting TC members, to pursue a 'funding line' within each voting company
for support to information standards. This line would then be used to make
an equitable contribution to core AP239 work.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Kreiler [mailto:kreilerc@mantech-wva.com]
Sent: 25 February 2005 15:09
To: howard.mason@baesystems.com; plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [plcs] Proposed Organisation document


The below comments have been inserted (>response<) to respond to Howard's
thoughts/questions on the PLCS TC Organization and Functional
Responsibilities sent out for review and comment.

-----Original Message-----
From: howard.mason@baesystems.com [mailto:howard.mason@baesystems.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:33 AM
To: plcs@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [plcs] Proposed Organisation document

Firstly, my thanks to Chris and Phil for working up this document.  

Some thoughts/questions on the proposal from my perspective (linked to slide
numbers:

(Howard)p3) Are the pilots going to be represented directly on the TC, or
through the voting representatives of the involved companies?  I assume the
latter.

>response< The Pilots should be represented through the company voting
member on the TC.  Any Pilot can send a representative to the TC meeting (as
meetings are open to all) if they desire.

(Howard)p3) Who provides/funds core staff, such as the Information
Architect?

>response< All funding would come from the members.  The OASIS model does
not provide for "membership" fees but rather relies on contributions by
participation.  That is not to say that a member within the TC could fund
core staff such as US DoD funding the Secretariat or provide the core staff
function from within the company.

(Howard)p3) Are the tool and business experts in the Technical Oversight
group drawn from the TC voting members, or the larger group of experts that
participate in the TC

>response< There were no restrictions on the number of roles an individual
could assume other than physical time constraints.  It was assumed that the
tool and business experts in the Technical Oversight Group would be drawn
from the larger group of experts that participate in the TC member
companies.  However, a voting member could serve as a business expert, tool
expert, project leader, tester, or in any other role.

(Howard)p3) Do the testers in the QA function come from the pilot projects,
or are these TC members?

>response< The testers would come from both the Pilot Projects and TC
members.  The initial testing of the DEX would be the responsibility of the
DEX Development Team with results validated and verified by the QA Lead.  It
was envisioned that Pilots would be more involved in industrial strength
testing for implementation.  Under OASIS rules, a standard must be certified
by at least three OASIS member organizations that they are successfully
using the specification consistently with the OASIS IPR Policy.


(Howard)p4) Is DEX development progress reported through the Technical
Oversight group, or direct to the TC.  The former implies two levels of
structure, which I have tried to avoid.

>response< The current Organization Chart reflects two levels of structure
where the Technical Oversight Lead would report DEX development progress to
the OASIS TC.  This was done for better coordination of the DEX Teams with
the Information Architect.  If the TC desires that DEX Team Leaders report
directly to the OASIS TC, the Organization Chart would be redrawn.

(Howard)p4)  I assume the Tool Expert in the infrastructure team is the
DEXlib support.

>response< That is correct.  The Infrastructure/Tool Team is DEXLib support.

(Howard)p5)  I believe the publication of AP239 is an SC4 issue, as is the
formal maintenance.  That said, we will probably need to ensure that the TC
has the necessary resource to address this.

>response< We agree that publication of AP239 is an SC4 issue.  The main
question is: who owns AP239?  Our idea was that TC184/SC4/WG3/T8 owns and
maintains the AP.  The OASIS TC would monitor SEDS and recommended changes
for how they would affect the DEXs.  Close coordination would be maintained
between the OASIS TC and SC4.  I realize this issue becomes very fuzzy since
many are wearing both hats.  However, I think that we need to clarify
exactly what the OASIS TC is willing to be responsible for.

(Howard)p6) Is it intended that the Technical Oversight role includes
coordination across DEXes, such as allocation of capability developments to
DEX teams?

>response< Yes.  It is intended that the Technical Oversight role
coordinates across DEXs to ensure compliance with the Information
Architecture, reduce redundancy, and streamline the work.  A capability
should be assigned to a specific DEX for accountability and management.  The
DEX Team should coordinate with other DEX Teams and Technical Oversight to
ensure that all requirements are met.

(Howard)p6) By documentation, I assume we mean items such as the cookbook

>response< Yes.  The overall documentation for DEX development (DEX
Cookbook, Reference Data Instructions, etc.) would be the responsibility of
Technical Oversight.  Documentation of DEXs in the DEX package would be the
responsibility DEX Development Team.

(Howard)p6) Is the review of DEXes, etc, intended to cover technical
consistency, since the editorial review is done elsewhere?

>response< The review of the DEXs includes both the Technical and Business
review.  An editorial review for correct English, etc. should be done by
Quality Assurance and Secretariat before submission for a vote.

(Howard)p9) I assume this provides the editorial review.

>response< Yes.  The Quality Assurance should assist in the editorial
review.

(Howard)The mapping of the tasks that we identified in Bristol, including
those defined by the synchronisation project, into this structure will test
the framework.

>response< The tasks identified in Bristol have already been mapped into the
organization.  Phil and I felt that sending out that much detail for a first
review would be counterproductive.  If anyone would like a copy of the full
briefing with the tasks identified in Bristol included, I will be happy to
send it to them.  Phil and I took out all of the duplications so the tasks
should be pretty clean.  We then assigned each task to a part of the
organization.

>response< To date, other than Howard's questions, there have been only
editorial comments on the TC organization structure.  Should I assume that
everyone is in basic agreement with the organization as proposed with the
exception of the DEX reporting either through the Technical Oversight or
directly to the OASIS TC?  Preferences?  

(Howard)Howard Mason

Respectfully submitted,

Chris Kreiler
PLCS Secretariat