Some Scenarios for Preinitiation Events

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

It's raining again, so I might as well.

Here are some skeletal scenarios for circumstances that might
lead to the formation of a committee to do some specification
work within OASIS.  Some may not be usefully different from
others; if so, ignore them.


1.  OASIS Faction Quietly Desires Spec

Some group of OASIS members (R uses "faction" nicely, I think) articulates,
in a meeting of an OASIS committee, a desire for an XML specification in
a certain domain.

Features of this scenario:
	- the group is from the membership
	- the desire is articulated in a meeting of an OASIS committee,
		or a general meeting of the membership; if a committee,
		it may be in scope for that committee or not
	- the desire is for a spec, not a committee

This is pretty much how Officedoc got started, if that meeting of the
"OASIS TC" was legitimately a meeting.  (An alternate scenario is
that this all happens in the bar, but that doesn't help much in working
on functional requirements for process.)


2.  Popular Existing Spec Needs Good Home

An existing specification, already well established in use, loses the
institutional underpinnings of its development and maintenance effort.
Its failing support group contacts OASIS and asks that OASIS take over
the work.

Features of this scenario:
	- the group need not include OASIS members
	- the specification is already known to be useful
	- a continuing effort is required

This is pretty much how Docbook found its way to OASIS (although in
that case the support group was a society whose members also were
OASIS members, so they thought they knew how to get it done).


3.  OASIS Members Demand Mediation

A specification of interest to multiple OASIS members is or is in
danger of being implemented (or standardized, somewhere else)
incompatibly.  A group of members asks OASIS to conduct a
[industry-] standardization effort.

Features of this scenario:
	- the group is composed of OASIS members
	- the specification is at least of interest to multiple
		members, if not already known to be
		useful if only they all agreed on how 
		to interpret it
	- the result must be agreed upon by nearly all of the 
		group for the outcome to be successful
	- the expertise for conducting the effort may not 
		exist within the group, and may have to
		be found by OASIS

This is pretty much how SGML Open did CALS tables, and how
Conformance got started.  


4.  OASIS Faction Publicly Desires Spec

Same as 1, except that the desire is expressed publicly, for 
example, at a meeting of the WTO.  The change in feature is
that the context is not an OASIS meeting.


5.  OASIS Faction Privately Desires Spec

Same as 4, except that the desire is not expressed in the hearing
of any other OASIS members or anyone else.  The change in
feature is that there is no procedural context at all.


6.  Outsiders Demand OASIS Do Something

Some group of nonmembers demands publicly that OASIS do some
purportedly technical work, something between ending world hunger
and forbidding the use of mixed content in CALS table cells.  

Features of this scenario:
	- the group is composed of nonmembers
	- the desire is expressed in terms of OASIS doing something
		but not in terms of OASIS process
	- the desire may or not be in scope for OASIS

This kind of thing is sure to happen on xml-dev if it hasn't already; it's
happening to the WTO in Seattle today.


7.  Consortium Desires Spec

Some consortium requests OASIS to create an XML specification
in some domain.  Cf. 1.

Features of this scenario:
	- the group is formally organized, whether
		or not its own members are from the OASIS membership
	- the desire is not articulated in a procedural context
	- the desire is for a spec and probably some formal process
		that legitimates the consortium not doing the work
		itself


9.  OASIS Membership Forms Committee To Do Something
  
At an annual general meeting where a quorum is present, the membership
takes the bit in its teeth and forms a committee of the membership to do
some technical work, something between ending tag abuse and forbidding
the introduction of new acronyms until we've all memorized the existing ones.

Features of this scenario:
	- the overriding feature is that the committee is a committee of
		the membership, possibly in opposition to the Executive
		Committee.  If not forbidden by 5.2, its formation and
		conduct will be governed by R, as will its relations with
		the Executive Committee. 





regards, Terry