Hi Tony, Kelvin, and Mary,
{I am resending this message because based on what I received and
what I see on the site, the original got reformatted by the
editors in the mail tool and web site, rendering it a bit too
messy to be useful. I am trying the exact same message again
w fixed width text, lines < 76 chars}
IMO, the process has been properly followed. I have tried to explain this in
previous emails, which I will cite again, and see if I can summarize the
situation.
In particular, in the following email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201010/msg00025.html
I suggested that people cast their votes on the open ballot, based on my
interpretation of the process, and I included a time line of events that
I believe explain why the ballot was voted to be launched on Jun 9. Also,
in that email is a "+1" from Mary confirming that the time line of events
was accurate. I am including that time line below and have numbered the
items 1->16 for reference purposes.
For context, there have been 3 ballots for ws-sx examples, and I will
trace the process for each below, which should show that the 3rd ballot
just voted on was approved by the 9-Jun-10 TC meeting, and that after
this vote the process was followed and that the ballot was initiated
properly and voted on.
I believe the process followed was exactly the same as that followed in
the previous 2nd ballot, which unfortunately did not pass only because
not everyone was aware the ballot was open.
The first ballot did pass, which produced CS-01 on 24-Nov-09.
The 2nd and 3rd ballots have been attempts to approve some changes to
the list of acknowledgements plus some TC-Admin requested format
changes, which have been intended to move the doc to CS-02.
First, in terms of ballots, there have been 3 ballots for WS-SX examples
(which can be seen on the TC-Members page under the "Ballots" tab):
Ballot Name Close Date Status
Approve WS-Security Policy Examples
as a Committee Specification 2010-11-03 Closed
Approve WS-Security Policy Examples
as a Committee Specification 2010-05-07 Closed
Approve WS-Security Policy Examples
as a Committee Specification 2009-11-23 Closed
The vote to initiate the first ballot (dated 2009-11-23 above) was
recorded in the 30-Sep-09 TC minutes:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/200910/msg00001.html
The first ballot was passed on 23-Nov-09, and the the doc was updated by
tc-admin to CS-01, and is located here:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/security-policy/examples/ws-sp-usecases-examples-cs-01.html
Sequence of events for 2nd ballot:
* The first attempt to go to CS-02, was voted on in the Feb 3, 2010
TC meeting, item #2 below.
* The ballot was not initiated because TC-Admin requested changes on
Feb 17, 2010, item #3 below.
* The requested changes by TC-Admin were submitted on Apr 1, 2010,
item #5 below.
* TC-Admin then launched the ballot on Apr 30, 2010, closed on
May 7, 2010, with insufficient votes, item #6 below. Mary also
indicated we could restart the ballot if we wanted, since it only
failed because not all members who wanted to vote had been aware of
the open ballot.
However, instead of restarting the ballot, the TC decided to make some
changes including the removal of the section on RFC2119, plus some minor
edits to remove any RFC2119 formatting in the doc. The doc was then
updated with the minor edits and RFC2119 removed, and submitted for
committee review on May 12, 2009, item #9 below.
The sequence for the 3rd ballot then began:
* The second attempt to go to CS-02 was voted on in the Jun 9, 2010
TC meeting, item #10 below and the doc resubmitted based on that
vote: item #11.
* The ballot was not initiated because TC-Admin had some requested
changes, including restoral of the RFC2119 section as detailed
in Jul 12, 2010 email from TC-Admin, item #12 below.
* The changes requested by TC-Admin were discussed at the
Sep 15, 2010, where it was decided to get further clarification
from TC-Admin, as to whether RFC2119 section should be restored,
item #14 below:
o TC-Admin was contacted, and reconfirmed that the section
needed to be restored
o Restoring the section on RFC2119 was further discussed at
the Oct 13, 2010 TC meeting, item #15 below, and it was
decided to restore the section which was done and the
updated doc re-submitted after that meeting, item #16 below.
o Note: there was some discussion that we might need to vote
again at the next meeting, but it turned out this was
unnecessary because updating the doc with just template
corrections based on TC-Admin comments does not require
a revote, which is exactly what happened in the 2nd
ballot as well, as described in the previous set of bullets.
However, it was not known at the meeting that it was
unnecessary to vote again, so simply resubmitting the
document w the TC-Admin requested changes was sufficient,
that based on TC-Admin approval of the changes that the
ballot could be launched based on the vote of the
Jun 9, 2010 meeting.
* The ballot was started and received the necessary votes to
approve CS-02.
IMO, the confusion that has been discussed was because it was not well
understood that when a vote for a ballot is approved on a document by
the TC, that TC-Admin then reviews the document and can recommend changes.
If those changes are simply formatting and template related issues, then
the TC does not necessarily have to vote again, presumably since it was
not the TC that requested the changes, and that if TC-Admin is satisfied
with the changes then there is no need for the TC to approve the changes
requested by TC-Admin.
Probably way too much detail for most to plow thru, however, IMO, this
ballot was launched based on the Jun 9, 2010 vote, was delayed due to
changes requested by TC-Admin on Jul 12, 2010, those changes were
approved by TC and submitted on Oct 13, 2010, which effectively resulted
in the "automatic" launching of the delayed ballot.
Finally, there also was talk on Oct 13 TC mtg of another vote, but I
believe that was based on the erroneous belief that it was necessary
to vote again after making the TC-Admin requested changes, which
satisfied the requirements of the latent voted request for ballot
from Jun 9. This is why I suggested that people vote on the
outstanding ballot, because I assumed the ballot had been properly
launched, and rather than have another failed ballot due to
lack of votes, that we could "fix it later" if necessary, which,
imo, is not necessary, but presumably the TC as a whole can
decide that.
Thanks,
Rich
*******************************************************************
Timeline of events on Examples doc since cs-01:
*******************************************************************
#1: 2/1/10:
original update (wd-21) of acknowledgements approved by TC to request
ballot, but was based from cd-01, not cs-01:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201002/msg00001.html
#2: 2/3/10:
tc votes to approve cd-02, and to start ballot for cs-02:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201002/msg00013.html
#3: 2/17/10:
mary request to do updates based on cs-01:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201002/msg00018.html
#4: 3/30/10:
same mods as 2/1, voted on at 2/3 meeting, but using cs-01 as baseline:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201003/msg00007.html
#5: 4/1/10:
same mods as 2/1/10, which was voted on at 2/3/10 mtg, but using cs-01
as baseline and submitting as wd-22:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201004/msg00000.html
#6: 5/8/10:
mary sends notice that ballot received insufficient votes to pass, but that
if members failed to vote then we could resubmit:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201005/msg00001.html
#7: 5/12/10:
candidate doc submitted to tc to consider resubmitting:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201005/msg00006.html
#8: 5/12/10: tc mtg discusses missed ballot where a number of yes votes
were simply unaware ballot was open; however, rather than resubmit as is
tc decides to remove rfc2119 refs:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201005/msg00010.html
#9: 5/12/10:
candidate doc submitted to tc for approval as cd-03 w rfc2119 removed:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201005/msg00011.html
#10: 6/9/10:
tc votes the 5/12 doc to cd-03 to be submitted for tc-admin ballot:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201006/msg00010.html
#11: 6/9/10:
candidate doc, cd-03, for tc-admin ballot:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201006/msg00009.html
#12: 7/12/10:
tc-admin requests changes incl restoral of rfc2119 before approving ballot:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201007/msg00005.html
#13: 8/10/10:
reply to query on status: delays have been incurred, but changes in
progress:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201008/maillist.html
#14: 9/15/10:
tc mtg: requests clarification on rfc2119 from tc-admin, but other requested
chgs to proceed:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201009/msg00007.html
#15: 10/13/10:
tc mtg: decides to restore rfc2119, and resubmit doc:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201010/msg00003.html
#16: 10/13/10:
doc submitted as cd-04 w all reqd tc-admin chgs:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-sx/201010/msg00002.html
*******************************************************************
Anthony Nadalin wrote:
180155C5EA10854997314CA5E063D18F0155D7E2@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com"
type="cite">
I
don’t believe that you received a request by the chair create the vote,
so we are back to procedure.
From: Mary
McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:27 PM
To: Kelvin Lawrence
Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-sx] Groups - WS-SecurityPolicy Examples
Version 1.0 CS02
(docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/security-policy/examples/ws-sp-usecases-examples-cs-02.html)
uploaded
Hi Kelvin,
With all due respect to Tony, I received no
request from a Chair to withdraw the ballot; the ballot passed by the
required 2/3 majority and the CS document was created. Any member may
appeal the decision of the TC and/or the TC Administrator but I have
not seen anything so at this point, at least, the CS stands.
Best regards and welcome back!
On Nov 17, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Kelvin Lawrence
wrote:
I have
been out of the country most of the last 8 days. Can someone please
update me as to where we eneded up ion this issue? Do Chris and I have
actions?
|