OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tgf message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: NZ comments coming... RE: [tgf] TGF PL document public review contribution


Folks

So sorry I could not join you in London 2 weeks ago.
But I have finally stopped travelling and started on the backlog of email etc.

Two things I want to alert the TC to:

1) A senior manager in my organisation has finally actually read the draft doc and overall, is saying complimentary things about it. This is good news and I get a sense (remote from the fray as I am) that there is momentum slowly building to begin to take it on board and implement it.  That may be a few months away yet, but I sense it.

2)  There are a range of comments to come in. they are being prepared as I type this. I have a sense of some of these.  Most of them relate to inconsistent depth of treatment..introducing a concept but moving too much into 'solution' mode thereby restricting the wiggle room to implement the spec 'jurisdiction-specific' with whatever tensions, shortcomings, politics, culture etc that may apply.  I'm letting you know about this now since the comment deadline is tomorrow and I want to be sure these are included (just in case the formal response does not make it in time).

Examples given are:

A) Franchise marketplace/model (right idea, but too solution specific), too big a bite, genericise it.   
B) Pattern 12 ('brand-led') considered an overloaded term, and perhaps better sub-setted into a more generic term for the whole suite of components should be something like 'Service Design and Delivery' (again given as an example where the concept is good, but is pushed too far to a specific solution),
C) 'One-stop-shop' also regarded as too solution specific and easily mis-interpreted as requiring some portal design, when various apps could reside of end user devices. 'Seamless' was offered as a better more generic descriptor.

All of the above were seen as impediments to adoption (more to misinterpretation than conceptual disagreement), and not enough recognition of the other (non citizen focussed dynamics) at work..the 3 way tension between agencies, users, and the crown/federal. The holistic 'sweet spot' was the place where all 3 are optimised, and feeling was that we had optimised for 2 - users and the central government - but not all 3. 

Other inconsistencies were brought up, namely:

D) 'Product Mgt' in the Framework core patterns but not in the Primer,
E) CSF's in the framework in a different order than in the Primer (i.e. they should be brought up to be under Guiding Principles in the Framework core patterns (I can foresee this possibly screwing up the pattern however)
       
Interestingly, I saw a table being prepared that had a column for the Conformance statements, mapped to a column that pulled pattern solution statements after 'therefore'.. so you could see that the idea was to add in existing capabilities,  to determine where the gaps were that would affect conformance.  

I suspect that our folks may need a teleconference with the editors and Chair sometime in the next 10 days..

Anyway, FWIW....
   
Cheers
Colin

-----Original Message-----
From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Peter F Brown
Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2011 6:14 a.m.
To: John Borras; 'Andy Hopkirk'; 'TGF TC List'
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF PL document public review contribution

Andy, John, all - 
In order to be able to address all the points raised by TC members and non-members alike, I will use the following systematic approach, as recommended by many TC's:
- each issue, however minor, will be tabulated with an indication of the change proposed and rationale;
- Chris and I will give an opinion as editors (and where useful additionally from other original contributors) and a "proposed disposition";
- the proposed disposition will be communicated back to the comment submitter with an offer to accept or further comment;
- this completed tabulation will be circulated to the TC for further comment;
- we will go through the list of unresolved issues at our meeting next week.

One note of caution: there is no formal provision in the TC process to consider "non-substantive changes" that could avoid a further 15-day review. The TC process wording is very clear on this:
"If any changes are made to the draft after the public review, whether as a result of public review comments or from TC Member input, then the TC must conduct another review cycle. The draft may not be considered for approval by the TC as a Committee Specification or Committee Note until it has undergone a review cycle during which it has received no comments that result in any changes."

I would argue therefore that the burden of proof is on us to demonstrate unequivocally that all issues raised are so minor as to not constitute "changes" but this may be difficult to sustain. Only the TC can determine whether that is the case for all comments - at worst, it will mean signing off as a completed spec at our December rather than the November meeting. Let's see how the work progresses in the next week or so...

Best regards,
Peter

Peter F Brown
Independent Consultant
www.peterfbrown.com
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA
Tel: +1.310.694.2278

-----Original Message-----
From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras
Sent: Monday, 24 October, 2011 01:13
To: 'Andy Hopkirk'; 'TGF TC List'
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF PL document public review contribution

Andy

Thanks for this comprehensive review!  It looks a daunting set of changes but I suggest if we break it down it's not that bad.

1.  There is a lot of basic word-smithing type stuff which I'm happy to accept and we can treat as non-substantive.
2.  There are some suggestions of naming inconsistencies and sequencing particularly between Fig 1 and the text of the document, eg Franchise Model, Transformational Roadmap.  You're probably right on these but I'd defer to Chris on them as it's mostly his source material.
3.  You suggest a basic change from Citizen to Customer throughout. I'm not happy with this.  When I was in Gov't I could never accept that governments had customers, it just never felt the right word although it's probably very PC. Customers normally have a choice of suppliers, but taxpayers don't. So I would want to stay with the generic use of Citizen as we have it.
4.  Your suggestion of consistent formatting of the Patterns seems fair comment but I'd ask for Peter's views on your proposals.
5.  You suggest we shouldn't express opinions unless we can back them up with referenced material.  I don't altogether agree with this. We as a TC of experienced eGov professionals have the right to express opinions based on our experience and judgment so I wouldn't agree with your view on this.

So in an effort to clear your comments, perhaps Peter could deal with 1 and
4 above without further discussion unless anyone has any objections, and on our call next week we can focus on points 2, 3 and 5 plus anything else anyone wants to raise.


John

-----Original Message-----
From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Andy Hopkirk
Sent: 23 October 2011 20:52
To: TGF TC List
Subject: [tgf] TGF PL document public review contribution

hi,
My contribution to the TGF Pattern Language document public review is attached.
Is in Word .docx and should be viewed showing comments and Tracked Changes.
Andy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tgf-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tgf-help@lists.oasis-open.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tgf-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tgf-help@lists.oasis-open.org

====
CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
====


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]