[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: straw poll - 20 items
TC Formation ============ 1. Add to section 3 that the proposed charter should - 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) - 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 - Who is to assess how similar is "similar work"? Would the answer to this possibly disqualify the committee from being created? I can see a committee being very useful in investigating innovations and alternatives, taking advantage of the process being offered by an OASIS TC. 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 require ratification __ disagree to require ratification _X_ neutral to require ratification 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 require different companies _X_ disagree to require different companies __ neutral to require different companies - A company may not have a process like the TC process available to them to take advantage of ... in this way OASIS is being a service to the member company. 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 require eligibility at 15 days __ disagree to require eligibility at 15 days _X_ neutral to require eligibility at 15 days 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: - we need to talk about this based on experiences in my XSLT committee. 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: - if they are a corporate member I think they would just become an individual member and restart the observer process ... all they are missing out on is voting, not on the participation or work of the committee 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. _X_ agree that prospective member must participate __ disagree that prospective member must participate __ neutral that prospective member must participate 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: - my gut feel is that they should just become individual members as that is why individual membership exists 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: - acceptable to have a minimum membership of three 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 that list subscribers don't need to be PEOTCPs __ disagree that list subscribers don't need to be PEOTCPs __ neutral that list subscribers don't need to be PEOTCPs - assuming the question is for "discussion list", not the actual committee list 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" or "reports" depending on how they are used __ disagree that OASIS should call its work "standards" __ neutral that OASIS should call its work "standards" - the ISO defines a difference between standards and reports: a standard is something used by others, a report is something illustrating a standard; for example, ISO 8879 is the International Standard for SGML, while ISO 9573 is a technical report on the use of SGML at ISO Central Secretariat - there aren't many reports, but they are distinct from standards - I think we could have the same distinction in OASIS 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 _X_ disagree that we should allow this My alternate suggestion: - my perception is that there have been only problems at ISO/IEC JTC 1 with the PAS submission process ("Public Available Specification") and the actions of qualified PAS Submitters (groups deemed to have sufficient public input to qualify publicly available specifications as having been an open and fair development) - to avoid problems I think anyone wishing to take existing work in to OASIS go through all the regular channels to ensure appropriate involvement 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 _X_ disagree that committee work should be reviewed by members __ neutral that committee work should be reviewed by members - when was it decided a test suite wouldn't be an OASIS standard? I think it qualifies ... it is something that is used by others, not just illustrative - one of the benefits of the process was that it was available to members to be used as a tool to come to some kind of closure of their own definition ... I don't see membership review as being required 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. _X_ agree to add IPR and copyright to checklist __ disagree to add IPR and copyright to checklist __ neutral to add IPR and copyright to checklist 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 _X_ disagree with suggestion My alternate suggestion: - while I acknowledge it isn't being used well yet, I think the distinction is important; as I understand it the committee is not obliged (but may do so if they choose) to respond to any post or statement made to the comments list; by having it separate this division of responsibility is kept clear 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. _X_ agree with suggestion __ disagree with suggestion My alternate suggestion: 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 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 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" -- G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/m/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (Fax:-0995) Web site: XSL/XML/DSSSL/SGML/OmniMark services, training, products. Book: Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath ISBN 1-894049-06-3 Article: What is XSLT? http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/08/holman/index.html Next public instructor-led training: 2001-06-18,06-21,08-12,08-13,09-19 Training Blitz: 3-days XSLT/XPath, 2-days XSLFO in Ottawa 2001-06-18/22
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC