[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: straw poll - 20 items
>
> TC Formation
> ============
> 1. Add to section 3 that the proposed charter should
1a:
> - Identify what other groups/committees inside and outside of OASIS are
> doing similar work, and specify what coordination/liaison could or will be
> done with those other groups. (This is the same as Robin's suggestion of
> 4/23)
__ agree to add these additional requirements
_X_ disagree to add these additional requirements
__ neutral to add these additional requirements
It seems to me that we should encourage TCs to know who else is doing related work, but should word any requirement that they state who these people/groups are in a way that does not:
a) require coordination/liason
b) does not invalidate the work of a TC if such a group is discovered
after the TC begins work
1b:
> - Specify whether conformance testing will be done by this TC or by
> another group.
> (Note that this is not requiring that the TC do the coordination or
> conformance work, just that it must be identified. If the TC does not feel
> it is necessary or that the TC does not have the resources to do the work
> they can say so, but they must specify this. At the very least this would be
> an intellectual exercise, but could also go a long way towards increasing
> the quality of OASIS technical work.)
>
__ agree to add these additional requirements
_X_ disagree to add these additional requirements
__ neutral to add these additional requirements
>
> 2. Add to section 4 that the charter and chair of the TC must be ratified by
> the members at the first meeting. This would allow tweaking the charter if
> things have changed over the 45 days since the announcement, another group
> wants to join in, etc. and would also allow for a different chair if
> participants like the charter but not necessarily the person who suggested
> it. (However, this admittedly could also introduce problems if a large
> number of people wanted to hijack the TC; let's discuss this.)
>
__ agree to add these additional requirements
__ disagree to add these additional requirements
_X_ neutral to add these additional requirements
>
> 3. Add to section 3 that the three PEOTCPs that create a TC must be from
> different companies. This would prevent a single company from starting a TC.
>
__ agree to add these additional requirements
_X_ disagree to add these additional requirements
__ neutral to add these additional requirements
>
> TC Membership
> =============
> 4. Add in section 4 that a person must be a PEOTCP at the time of notifying
> the chair of the person?s intent to join (i.e. 15 days before first
> meeting). This is to avoid last-minute membership scrambles.
>
__ agree to add these additional requirements
_X_ disagree to add these additional requirements
__ neutral to add these additional requirements
>
> 5. Currently, in section 6, to retain TC membership a person must attend two
> out of three meetings. What if a person misses two in a row, gets a warning,
> then attends the third meeting so he?s back in, but then misses the fourth?
> He?s now attended only one out of four meetings. (This is the case mentioned
> by Eve on 3/20 and forwarded by Jon on 4/20.)
>
> My suggestion:
Limit people to one warning per year. This gives one "free" restart, and after that there is an automatic out after missing two meetings.
>
> 6. In sections 5, 6, and 7, how does a person retain TC membership when
> switching employment? How long can the person take to find a new job, and
> can they continue to participate while unemployed? (This is a case mentioned
> by Lauren on 1/15.)
>
> My suggestion:
>
> 7. In section 5 add the requirement that a prospective TC member participate
> in the TC as an observer according to the existing "two out of three"
> attendance rules during the probationary period. This would make sure that
> the new member is committed and educated before being allowed to vote.
>
__ agree to add these additional requirements
_X_ disagree to add these additional requirements
__ neutral to add these additional requirements
I don't see how we can require this if we also allow TC Chairs to exclude them from meetings.
>
> 8. We need to decide whether to allow invited experts to participate in TCs,
> and if allowed define how they are invited and what their rights in the TC
> are.
>
__ agree to allow invited experts
_X_ disagree to allow invited experts
__ neutral to allow invited experts
>
> My suggestion for particpation requirements:
If the policy is that anyone who is serious can afford to be an individual OASIS member, then we don't need to do this. Are there really people we want to participate in TCs who can't/won't come up with the $250?
>
> 9. What happens when membership in a TC drops below three people? Is a
> one-person TC still a TC? How many people are required to be in the TC when
> it completes its work and votes to create a Committee Specification?
>
> My suggestion:
It took three people to start a TC; it should take 3 people to sustain one.
>
> Discussion Lists
> ================
> 10. Add to section 2 that, while a discussion list is started by PEOTCPs,
> subscribers to the discussion lists do not need to be PEOTCPs. This would
> allow prospective OASIS members to participate in the discussion to see if
> they are interested in joining OASIS for the purpose of participating in the
> TC.
>
_X_ agree to add these additional requirements
__ disagree to add these additional requirements
__ neutral to add these additional requirements
>
> Standards Process
> =================
> 11. Is OASIS justified in calling the results of our process a "standard",
> as we are not a de juere standards organization?
>
_X_ agree that OASIS should call its work "standards"
__ disagree that OASIS should call its work "standards"
__ neutral that OASIS should call its work "standards"
An organization becomes a standards organization first by saying it is, and then by other people accepting it. There is no "official" designator of standards organizations; if OASIS wants to be a standards organization then it needs to say so, and then act like it is.
>
> 12. Define how existing/completed work can be submitted to OASIS to become
> an OASIS Standard without having to go through a TC. (I suggest that we
> simply require three PEOTCPs to submit the work and certify three
> implementations on the existing quarterly schedule. This would save the
> effort of setting up a TC and the 45 days wait to hold the first TC
> meeting.)
>
__ agree with suggestion
__ disagree that we should allow this
My alternate suggestion:
>
> 13. Should we do anything different for committee work that is not designed
> to be submitted to membership for creation as an OASIS Standard? (e.g.
> conformance test suites are considered tools, not specs, so are not
> submitted to become OASIS Standards.) Should the committee work product
> still be reviewed by membership?
__ agree that committee work should be reviewed by members
__ disagree that committee work should be reviewed by members
__ neutral that committee work should be reviewed by members
Where did the distinction between "tools" and "specs" come from? And since when is a test suite not a specification? It's a specification for conformance, and I don't see that it's any different from any other specification.
>
> 14. Add that member organizations voting on a proposed OASIS spec must be
> members at the time the proposal is submitted to the membership, i.e. the
> start of the evaluation period. The 10% required for voting should be based
> on the number of member organizations at the start of the evaluation period.
> This is to prevent the vote from getting invalidated if we get a bunch of
> new members during a ballot period.
_X_ agree to base vote on membership at start of voting period
__ disagree to base vote on membership at start of voting period
__ neutral to base vote on membership at start of voting period
> 15. Add to the checklist that the committee?s submission (for a TC
> specification to be voted on as an OASIS standard) must include a statement
> regarding IPR compliance. Also, the submitted committee specification doc
> must include the OASIS copyright statement that is in the IPR.
>
__ agree to add IPR and copyright to checklist
_X_ disagree to add IPR and copyright to checklist
__ neutral to add IPR and copyright to checklist
We discussed this at length, and decided that since there was already an OASIS IPR policy anything we added would simply muddy the waters. If there are two rules about the same thing there can be conflict about which applies; if there is only one rule (the current OASIS IPR policy) then it clearly applies. It might be appropriate to note in the non-normative manual for committee chairs that there is an IPR policy.
>
> General/Other
> =============
> 16. In section 9 the mail list requirements aren?t very workable: there are
> two lists (discuss and comment) used to satisfy three groups of people (TC
> members, OASIS members, and the public). The comment lists are required to
> exist but are unused. I suggest that the TC process should simply describe
> the effect (e.g. "allow outsiders to post comments to the discussion list")
> without describing the method to accomplish the goal; let the list
> administrator figure out how best to do it. For example, the discussion list
> could simply be opened to postings from the public; subscriptions would
> still be restricted to members. This would do away with the need for a
> separate comment list.
>
__ agree with suggestion
__ disagree with suggestion
My alternate suggestion:
I don't mind if the requirement is stated functionally, but this suggestion ignores one of the key functions of the dual list system. (The argument that something people don't know about isn't needed because it isn't used is specious). I think it would be very valuable for TC members to be able to separate (by use of an email filter) mail from TC members and mail from the outside about the TC. This will be especially important if OASIS has any controversial TCs; without the ability to do this filtering vociferous non-members could flood the TC list, making TC work on a list virtually impossible.
>
> 17. I suggest a shorter amount of time to kill an inactive TC. Currently in
> section 11 an inactive TC can only be killed at the beginning of the year
> after a full year without a meeting; this could be 12-24 months of
> inactivity before the TC can be killed. I suggest that six to nine months of
> inactivity (no meetings, no substantive discussion) would be better. It?s
> publicly embarrassing to OASIS to have to publicize inactive TCs, and extra
> effort is required for OASIS to maintain the TC on our lists, etc.
>
__ agree with suggestion
_X_ disagree with suggestion
My alternate suggestion:
Why is it embarrassing to say that there are groups working at various speeds? And that some are available if needed but not currently active?
>
> 18. The TC Process does not define how to set up subcommittees of the TC,
> and doesn?t say anything about them at all other than mentioning them as
> part of the Joint Committee discussion. The Process should provide
> guidelines/rules for their creation and operation.
>
__ agree that process should define subcomittees
_X_ disagree that process should define subcomittees
__ neutral that process should define subcomittees
There should be a lot of variation at this point; large TCs will want more subcommittees than small, and more structured subcommittees. Since from the point of view of Roberts subcommittees are ephemeral I don't see why we would need to be prescriptive in this area.
>
> 19. The TC Process says little or nothing about how a TC operates once it
> has been set up, other than specifying RRO for the conducting of business.
> Should more be specified? or is a non-normative guidelines document
> sufficient?
>
__ agree that more should be specified
_X_ disagree that more should be specified
__ neutral that more should be specified
The guidelines should be sufficient, and suggestive only. If we tie this down too tightly we'll kill it.
>
> 20. I suggest that throughout the process document we drop the acronym
> "PEOTCP" and simply use the phrase "eligible person" instead. This would
> make the process document easier to read.
>
__ agree to replace "PEOTCP" with "eligible person"
_X_ disagree to replace "PEOTCP" with "eligible person"
__ neutral to replace "PEOTCP" with "eligible person"
"eligible person" would have to be very carefully defined, and might be confused with people eligible for something else. PEOTCP is ugly, but it is clear.
--
======================================================================
B. Tommie Usdin mailto:btusdin@mulberrytech.com
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Phone: 301/315-9631
Suite 207 Direct Line: 301/315-9634
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML
======================================================================
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC