RE: [tgf] TC deliverables - one, two, many?

[Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com>]

John, Peter

 

I'm going to be in a plane to Australia when the Friday meeting is held, so thought I should give my view on all this ahead of the meeting.

 

Basically, I like Peter's initial proposal - and I worry that John's proposal of initially just publishing the "core" will be too lightweight for people to engage with meaningfully.  I much prefer the idea of a single but multi-part standards track document called the TGF, which consists as Peter suggests of the Core document, and the top-level Business, Channels and Customer Frameworks (with ideally too one on SOA, drawing on existing OASIS work in this area).  I think this is doable on the March time frame, and will be more helpful and meaningful than just focusing on the Core document.

 

Once we have taken a view on this, I am happy to take up the pen from Peter and get a new draft round early next week.  I have started work on this already.  In addition to any structural changes that may flow from the call, I am currently aiming to do 4 things in the next version:

 

1. Make it crystal clear which parts of the text are simply context, and which are part of the formal spec (as per the exchange between Peter and Colin)
2. Make sure that the documents lose the "CS Transform voice" which is currently there
3. Align the three main overview diagrams we now have (the TGF product structure, the process map I produced showing how these all fit together, and Nig's stakeholder map).  They are I think all helpful in different ways, but need reviewing to make sure they are all entirely consistent, inter-locking and non-duplicatory of purpose.
4. Fill in as many of the gaps as possible.

 

It would be a real help if John or Peter could let me have a quick note with the conclusions of the meeting soon afterwards, as I'll then be able to pick it up when I stop-over in Hong Kong, so will be able to reflect the meeting's views in further work on the second leg of the trip and then over the weekend. 

 

Regards,

Chris Parker

Managing Partner, CS Transform Ltd, +44 7951 754 060

 

---

From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 02 February 2011 10:24
To: peter@peterfbrown.com; 'TGF TC List '
Cc: 'Robin Cover'
Subject: RE: [tgf] TC deliverables - one, two, many?

Peter

 

I think you are getting ahead of yourself a little, but let’s discuss on Friday.  The way I see things are as follows:

 

We have agreed that we should aim for a very quick baseline in March, that being a TGF Committee Draft Specification v1.0.   As such that has to be a stand-alone spec with no references out to other TC deliverables that have not yet been produced.  So this would be just the Core Framework that talks about the other Management Frameworks and possible Committee Notes but they are only described in broad detail, perhaps just in the Glossary.  

 

Once we have that v1.0 agreed we can then move immediately onto v2.0 which becomes possibly the multi-part spec you refer to below, ie includes the completion of the other Management Frameworks and possibly some CNs.  Whether we choose to deal with them as separate CSs/CNs or just  single ones is to be determined.

 

So for now let’s take it one step at a time and just order a single CS template for the first deliverable – the Core Framework, get that put to bed in March and not confuse ourselves with the other documents at this stage.  We will do well just to get the Core Framework completed and agreed by March I would suggest.

 

As I said, let’s discuss on Friday and then you can order the required template(s) from Robin.

 

John

 

From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: 01 February 2011 23:43
To: peter@peterfbrown.com; 'TGF TC List '
Subject: RE: [tgf] TC deliverables - one, two, many?

 

On second thoughts…

I’m holding off on my recommendation until at least after Friday’s discussion – there may be an argument (John’s point about “quick wins”) for having distinct deliverables that can be moved forward and approved as separate and independent entities.

 

Peter

 

From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 01 February, 2011 10:58
To: TGF TC List
Subject: [tgf] TC deliverables - one, two, many?

 

Hi:

I have now loaded to the document work area, a series of skeleton outlines using what existing material is available from the various contributions so far. SO we have:

1 – TGF Core Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable)

2 – Business Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable)

3 – Customer Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable)

4 – Channel Management Framework (proposed Standards-Track deliverable)

6 – Tools and Models for the Business Management Framework (proposed Non-Standards-Track deliverable)

 

I have checked with TC Administration what the procedures are for multi-part documents and they have pointed me to the following excerpt from the TC Admin Handbook at http://docs.oasis-open.org/TChandbook/Reference/WPQualityRequirements.html (my highlighting added):

Multi-Part Work Products

A Multi-Part Work Product may consist of:

§  a single prose document,

§  a single prose document and one or more related files such as schema, dtds, classes, etc.

§  multiple prose documents,

§  multiple prose documents and one or more related files.

The Work Product, even if multi-part, must have a single name and version number, and must be approved at each stage by a single Work Product Ballot. That is, the constituent parts cannot advance independently of each other or stand on their own.

In the case of multiple prose documents, there should be a single primary prose document that then refers to the distinct parts. Each distinct part should clearly state that it is part of the Work Product and refer to both the top-level document and any other related prose documents.

FOR EXAMPLE The Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) v1.2 Work Product consists of four prose documents, with the first being the primary:

§  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2

§  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2 Part 1: OpenDocument Schema

§  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2 Part 2: Recalculated Formula

§  Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) Version 1.2 Part 3: Packages

In light of this, I would propose to proceed as follows:

-          We open a request for a standards-track deliverable entitled the “Transformational Government Framework (TGF);

-          then create the three management framework documents as parts in accordance with those guidelines;

-          we advance the package as required and decide at any time to munge the four documents into one in accordance with the rules

 

For the Committee Notes, I am less sure, now that I have had an opportunity to go through existing material.

a)      I think that there is a case for a substantive piece on SOA - although we don’t have much primary material of our own at present, we can certainly refer to and do a synthesis of the most important documents from the SOA reference model and reference architecture framework;

b)      I also think there is sufficient and distinct material to do a Note covering the tools and models for Business Management – I have already submitted such a skeleton.

c)       I currently have no material (nor a clear picture in my mind) of what could/should go in to a Committee Note covering tools and models for Customer Management, particular as material including the ‘Concentrix’ and identity management are already included in the Customer Management Framework.

d)      I do not yet see a clear case for keeping the tools and models parts of Channel Management separate from the main Channel Management Framework and, given their nature, would probably be better placed in the main Channel Management Framework deliverable

 

So I’d suggest that we start two Committee Notes for a) and b) above and hold off on the other two for the time being.

 

If there is no push-back on this approach, I will start the process with TC Admin to get hold of the formal templates and naming schemes for our docs.

 

Regards,

 

Peter F Brown

Independent Consultant

Transforming our Relationships with Information Technologies

Web         www.peterfbrown.com

Blog          pensivepeter.wordpress.com

LinkedIn  www.linkedin.com/in/pensivepeter

Twitter     @pensivepeter

P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA

Tel: +1.310.694.2278