[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] OASIS STANDARD BALLOT RESULT
John, On reflection, I think that you are right to address this to the Board. I just didn’t want us to appear discourteous to those “no” voters who lodged a comment and be seen to be ignoring them. I guess we can respond
to them alongside, indicating that we have asked an opinion from the Board. My only concern, and which you seem to have properly addressed in the proposed wording of your note to the Board, is to give an impression that somehow we are asking for something to change because we did something
wrong. One of Patrick’s remarks hinted that this is what we were asking (along the lines of “let us through this time but we’ll ensure the rules are changed next time around…”) and I think we should be clear that we did everything correctly according to the
rules as they currently operate. That is not problem, as you rightly state… Cheers, and enjoy the rest of your weekend! Peter From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk]
Peter Thanks for these thoughts and I totally agree with your final point about not being seen as blindly and stubbornly pushing through the spec. However I prefer an alternative
approach to smooth troubled waters. Rather than engage with the commenters as you suggest I would prefer to engage with the Board over the outcome of the ballot. We will never resolve this problem with the commenters alone and it will only prolong the debate.
The issues raised in the ballot have to be addressed by the Board IMO and I would ask TC members to approve me sending a note to them as per attached. Note I am not prejudging the outcome of our decision in the second sentence and will adjusted the wording
an necessary. But my note does show that we believe the problem is not of our making, that we are really concerned about the large No vote, etc. but we believe we are in the right. I would suggest if I send this note it will leave you to speak more freely
at the Board meeting. And by copying it to the Chairs list it will get our views into the public domain and counter the disapproving comments.
Lots to discuss on Wednesday so an thoughts from members in advance will hopefully keep the time of the call down and make it more manageable please.
Regards John From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com]
John, All, There seem to have been three types of objection to the approval: -
“this is not a standard”. The work has been approved as a Committee Specification already, in accordance with the TC Process. The only additional elements, in order to satisfy the process, for a work to proceed to a Standard,
is the submission of at least three Statements of Use of the work in accordance with the conformance clauses. We have five. We have accomplished therefore the
necessary pre-requisites for the work to be considered a Standard. Some people do not like that provision (and I have my own views about it) but that is not a valid argument in opposing the approval of this specification – only a general call to have
that provision changed. If there is such a call, then I feel sure that members of this TC will comment on the adequacy of the current provisions. But that does not imply, as some seek to suggest, that we are “admitting” to not having followed the rules. We
did, completely. -
“the conformance clauses are not adequate”. There are two issues here: o
Conformance clauses are required already to be in place at the time of the first Public review of the draft Committee Specification. The clauses were present at that stage, again satisfying the
necessary pre-requisites for the work to be considered ready as a Public review, and subsequently as a Committee Specification. There are no further requirements in the process at those or any later stages as regards conformance clauses; o
Some may argue as to whether the conformance clauses as we have them drafted are adequate: this is, as most people commenting have conceded, a more subjective issue. Some commenters stated clearly that they are “well worded
and appropriate for achieving their purpose”; others that they are inadequate as they cannot be measured or tested. There are no rules governing the drafting of these clauses. There is one guideline, from the Technical Advisory Board (TAB), that states that
the clauses should be a “high level description of what is required”. The TGF TC certainly complied with that guideline. The TGF TC worked on these conformance clauses in good faith – we were always aware that there is an issue of “proving” conformance with what are essentially policy guidelines, recommendations
and abstract patterns of behavior – particularly to those members of the OASIS community who are most comfortable with tractable, implementable and directly observable running code. Within OASIS, both the SOA-RM and the BCM are examples of Standards that were
approved by the membership despite not including testable technology implementations. The TGF specification under scrutiny is certainly as “implementable” and testable as those two examples, accepted as Standards. We should remember that the definition of
standards has never been restricted to technologically implementable, however important standards of that type are for our work. Standards have always included “rules, guidelines and characteristics” aimed at achieving an “optimal degree of order” in a given
context – indeed those quotations are from the ISO/IEC definition of a Standard. Moreover, if anyone had had a concern that the conformance clauses were inadequate, there were several commenting periods – during the public reviews preceding the CS vote and the COS
Ballot – when these concerns could have been aired. Because it is potentially a subjective domain, those comments would have been treated with respect and due diligence, as were all the other comments received. The fact remains that
no comments were received by Patrick Durusau or anyone else regarding the conformance clauses, despite Patrick’s misleading implication that his concerns had not been addressed. In the absence of any evidence that we did
not comply with the process requirements; in light of the subjective nature of the interpretation of “adequacy” of those clauses; and in light of the widely accepted definition of a standard being much more than implementable and testable statements;
I would say that are conformance clauses are adequate and “fit for purpose”. As such, in terms of the three options we need choose between, I think we can only reasonably choose (a). I think we nonetheless should forward to the commenters the remarks above or any others deemed appropriate. We should be seen to be just blindly and stubbornly pushing the specification
through. Finally, I have prepared, for the Board’s consideration next week, some comments and views regarding the current rules and whether further guidance is required in future to reassure voters
that provisions of the process are being fully adhered to by all potential specifications and standards. regards, Peter From:
tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of John Borras Colleagues The ballot has now closed and the final votes cast were 60 (82% of total votes cast) in favour and 13 (18% of total votes cast) against. That means we have Conditional Approval according to
the TC Process Handbook and now have 3 choices as shown below on how to move forward. The purpose of the TC call next Wednesday will be to review the outcome of the ballot, the comments raised and decide on which of the 3 options we wish to follow. For
those of you who will not be able to make the TC call it would be very helpful if you could post a note to the TC list before the call setting out any views you have on the outcome of the ballot and your preference of the way forward. One of the major comments raised during the ballot concerned the Conformance Clauses and you will find the current guidance on these at
http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html. If you have chance please take a look as we need to reflect on this guidance in making our decisions. Regards John Borras Chair OASIS TGF Technical Committee m. +(0)44 7976 157745 Skype: gov3john www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tgf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Extract from TC Process Handbook:
“However, if negative votes are cast amounting to less than 25 percent of the votes that have been cast, the TC shall be notified of the negative votes, after which the TC shall
have 30 days to take one of the following actions by Resolution of a Special Majority Vote: (a) request the TC Administrator to approve the specification as submitted despite the negative votes; (b) withdraw the submission entirely; or (c) submit an amended
specification, in which case the amended submission shall be considered as if it were a new submission, except that information regarding previous votes and any disposition of comments received in previous votes shall accompany the amended submission. If the
originating TC upon notification of negative votes takes no formal action within the 30 days allocated for consideration of the results, then the specification shall not become an OASIS Standard.
Failure of a ballot for any reason shall not prevent a later version of the same specification from being submitted again as specified in this section.” |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]