RE: [tag] URGENT: deciding whether the Test Assertion Guidelines is a "specification" or a "note"

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I see no problem with going forward with the TA Guidelines Version 1.0 as a
Committee Specification that never goes beyond that.  We had been using the
Committee Specification track all along for Version 1.0 because that was the
only means available for advancing an informative document to a complete,
stable document.  The introduction of a separate OASIS Committee Note
progression wasn't available unto October 15, as I recall.

THE MINUTES ARE IN ERROR.  I see that we did approve request of Committee
Note status for the TA Guidelines in the motion as stated, seconded, and
approved by unanimous consent.

THAT IS MY MISTAKE.  I was so aware that the practice in the past was to
move informative documents to Committee Specification and to stop there,
that I forgot we had specified a different action for TA Guidelines in our
2010-10-26 Call by the time I wrote the minutes later that day.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 18:02
To: tag@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [tag] URGENT: deciding whether the Test Assertion Guidelines is a
"specification" or a "note"

All:

 

Per last meeting we decided  to submit the TA model, markup and Guidelines
for CS ballots (model, markup) and CN ballot (guidelines).

Dennis: I think your minutes did not catch correctly the CN intent for the
Guidelines (reported as a CS intent) - am I correct?

Anyway, the issue with moving the Guidelines to the newly created
non-standard track (as Committee Note), is that - after checking with the
OASIS TC admin -  it would require starting again to square one on the CN
track, meaning yet another public review of 30 days.

So we (myself and our secretary Dennis) are considering keeping the
Guidelines on a "standard" track as the other 2 deliverables, although it
has no normative statements and will NOT be moved beyond the Committee
Specification (CS) status.

The only real difference, is that the IPR status for Specifications  is not
same as for Notes, which by nature do not constrain the TC contributors
IP-wise as much as CS do.  Actually our TAG IPR mode "Royalty-Free on
Limited Terms", provides a clearer IP status and protection to users, for
deliverables produced as CS rather than CN.

So in the short term, the model and markup are not affected: we move
separately the markup and model to CS ballot, as these are the ones to move
further as OASIS standards.

But we need to decide as a TC if we are OK with the Guidelines as a
"Committee Specification" (as we have always stated in the past it would
just be an informational doc without specification status).

For this I plan to schedule a short meeting  Tuesday Nov 9th, 2pmPT. Please
use mailing list to voice your concern if any.

 

Thanks,

Jacques