Fw: Versioning of specs up to the TC?

Hi all,

At our last TC meeting we had a discussion about the versioning / numbering of our specification.

I checked with TC Admin and our idea to move to a version 2.0 is fine.

See below.

Regards,

Gershon Janssen

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@oasis-open.org> wrote:

Yes, as far as I'm concerned, the decision on version numbers is completely up to the TC. I would discourage some exotic new scheme - e.g. "we want to call this Version 401.c3 - Side B!" But deciding on whether you want to number it v1.1 or v2.0? Totally your decision. You all know best how to communicate to your community.

/chet

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Gershon Janssen wrote:
Hi Chet

Today at the PMRM TC call, we had a short discussion on versioning / assigning versions to a new revision of the spec.

For new for to the PMRM spec, the TC decided to introduce version 2.0 instead of version 1.1, for clarity reasons, so we don't confuse the users of the spec, although we have not introduced substantial changes at this point in time (yet).

Our reasoning:

Although the PMRM specification has not fundamentally changed, the new revisioni incorporates a number of changes that are intended to clarify the PMRM methodology, address inconsistencies in the text, address the increased focus on accountability by privacy regulators, improve definitions of terms, expand the glossary, and improve the graphical figures used to illustrate the PMRM.

I basically supported this approach, as i believe versioning / assigning versions is up to the TC itself.

I'm starting to doubt now ;-)

I'm I correct with my reasoning?

Please advice.

Kind regards,

Gershon Janssen

--

/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org

Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393

pmrm message