A survey

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

All:

 

I took the liberty to do an informal survey on the level of interest in a TC and some details of it.

I sent the questions to all people having been active on the list, but kept this outside the main discussion list because some might want to keep their answer anonymous (sure enough, some preferred so at this stage).

Therefore I reproduce all results in anonymous way, and here it is.

 

NOTES:

- responses were received over last 2 weeks - I did not get all responses yet.

- just 1 common response per org has been reported in case of several people in this org (not split here).

- in case some responses were verbose, took the liberty to shorten them - let me know if semantics was lost in the process, and don't hesitate to correct me on the list or outside...

- some people did not answer all questions, in which cases I did not report anything for the non-answered ones.

- The order of responders is not respected from one question to the next.

 

My conclusion is that there is enough interest and commitment for a TC, and furthermore that this TC would carry significant weight in terms of experience and expertise of participants.

 

I suggest then that we finalize charter details, and plan for a timeline.

For those planning to participate, the question (b) on IPR mode is certainly something to be sure of - and formal legal approval from their org probably requires a solid charter draft to look at  - so that is the most urgent.

 

Comments?

 

Jacques

 

====================================

(a) interest in participating in a "TAG TC" if we start one soon (e.g. Call for

Participation ~Feb28, 1st formal meeting or f-2-f early April)?

 

Responses:

- Yes (maybe more than 1 member)

- yes

- yes

- I'd like to, still need formal position from my company. (maybe more than 1 member)

- Yes

- yes

- yes

 

------------------------------------

(b) If yes for (a), would you favor an IPR mode that is Royalty Free

"on limited terms", (see http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php)?

 

Responses:

- yes

- yes

- RF absolutely required for me.

- yes

- probably

- I'm following up on this with our internal policy experts.

- yes

 

------------------------------------

(c) If yes for (a), would your company (must be OASIS member!) be a co-proposer of such a TC?

 

Responses:

- yes

-No.

- Yes

- don't know yet

- yes

- Go ahead and proceed for the TC. If our internal process permit and finishes on time

(for your time frame), we can be co-founders.

- yes

 

------------------------------------

(d) If yes for (a), can you evaluate the level of participation you could commit to,

say, for up to a year?

Level 1: light participation, just sufficient to keep voting rights and occasional review

of drafts - may attend meetings about twice a month as average.

Level 2: regular participation, able to attend a weekly meeting.

Level 3: willing to take some admin duty like secretary/editor/chair/cochair/liaison

 

Responses:

- L3

-L3

-L1

- L2 or L3, unless I discover that the proposed work would duplicate existing standards.

- L3

- L2 or L3

- My organisation wouldn't commit my time on such work.

 

------------------------------------

(e) Regardless of your commitment, are you in favor of an aggressive schedule for at least

a first deliverable about TA guidelines (no mark-up)? E.g. Committee Draft by October 2007?

Or else, what schedule seems more reasonable to you? And for a TA XML mark-up?

 

Responses:

-I think that would depend on the participants, and their time available?

I don't think you could decide that without a good feel for the work involved?

How much work is there, what level of agreement do you expect etc.

- I am in favor of Committe Draft by Oct. 2007, if participatants remain as involved as

they have on the list.

- yes

- I think that a proposed abstract structure should be published for public comment at

an early stage, and then we should see if there is any reaction from the Software Engineering

Community. Perhaps there could be a workshop after such a document is published. As for

final versions, I think both the guidelines and markup can follow an aggressive schedule

*after* the abstract structure has passed scrutiny.

- Aggressive is good. If October is too soon for a markup, how about trying for the

end of the year?

- yes for TA guideline, can try to shoot for October though that is on optimistic side.

I see the challenge for a TA guideline being more editorial, e.g. finding the

right set of examples to illustrate the notions, being easy to read and to use, etc.

XML markup may be fast, but depends on what is the purpose it tries to achieve.

- TA guideline Committee draft by October 2007, another 6 month for TA XML mark-up.

 

------------------------------------

(f) Any other suggestion for the TC charter?

 

Responses:

- nothing to add to draft. I like the look of how it has been going.

- I want the document(s) to be just as visible as the related W3C documents, not buried

in some members-only place. If that means it should be an OASIS Standard, go for it

- In general, it looks good to me. I presume that we'll get a chance to discuss this once more.

- I think the current approach is good. Regarding TC operation, I think we 'll need to keep

the email discussion focused on the agenda of the week, make sure we don't loose the proposals,

and consolidate on the regular basis.