Re: [xcbf] Ballot - Will changes be possible later on?

["Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

Alessandro Triglia wrote:

>Phil,
>
>Are the paragraphs below a correct interpretation of the OASIS rules?
>
>-----------------
>Once a CS is approved by the XCBF TC and submitted to OASIS for standard
>ballot, it will be impossible to make any changes to it - not even
>editorial ones - until after the end of the OASIS ballot.   
>  
>
This is what I understand. BUT, it is possible at any time for the TC
to pull the submission back and restart the process - make minor
changes, reballot the CS and resubmit it for consideration as an
OASIS standard, or make major changes and put it back out for
thirty day public review.

>- If the OASIS ballot succeeds  (YES >= 10%, NO = 0),  the document is
>immediately approved as an OASIS standard in its current form (therefore
>it cannot be amended).  
>  
>
Yes. There are no technical amendments or defects - as far as I can tell
there is no such process for such in OASIS. Therefore, the way to change
an existing standard is to start work on a revison, get it to CS, through a
public review, into the OASIS ballot and approved as a standard. This
new standard replaces the old.

It is interesting to contimplate that there seems to be no process for
periodic review of a standard. In ANSI for example, each approved
standard must face a four or five year review where it is either amended,
reapproved or withdrawn. Nothing like this in OASIS.

In OASIS, the process is geared to getting a standard approved and
used by industry in the least amount of time possible. Since a new version
to replace an existing standard can also be completed quickly, there's no
point in seeking the mythical absolute perfection that ANSI or ISO goes
for. The deal is get to market as fast as you can, then start work on a
better version of the standard immediately.

>- If the OASIS ballot is a partial success  (YES >= 10%, NO < 10%),  it
>will be possible to re-submit an amended CS to OASIS for another ballot.
>  
>
The idea I think is to give a TC a chance to amend if no votes are
encountered related to defects, or to go out and lobby for votes
if not enough members voted.

>Therefore, any wished changes that are not applied before TC approval of
>the CS must wait until the end of the OASIS ballot, and then they can
>only be applied if the ballot ends with a sufficient number of YES votes
>and some NO votes.  This is the only way and the only circumstance in
>which the document can be amended.
>
I disagree here. I think that changes go into the next version of
the standard and the approved document is fixed as it is. In the
case of XCBF, if approved by OASIS, the work might be taken
into SG17 by Paul where it might be approved as is, or approved
with minor changes or amendments, or some changes might be
pushed back to the TC for consideration in the next version,
much as XCBF did to X9F on X9.84.

>------------------
>
>Do you confirm this interpretation?
>
>If the above is correct, I don't see how we can delay the correction of
>the problems that currently exist in the text.  The document must be
>regarded as being in its definitive form **at this time**, and the
>voting must be based on this knowledge.
>  
>
I do agree that the text as given is already a CS, an XCBF standard if
you will. This document has been approved for submission to OASIS
as a standard in our last ballot.

The ballot out today is to make minor corrections to this version before
it goes off to OASIS - to get the best document possible into v1 of the
standard (is OASIS approves it).

If the ballot today fails, I think I can submit the last approved CS to
OASIS for consideration as an OASIS standard. But either way,
unless all members lobby heavily for OASIS member votes, the
XCBF CS may not become a standard.

And the longer we wait on promoting this technical solution the less
value it will have as a standard, and the more fragmented the market
will become. Application standards like XCBF have a shelf life. And
we seem to be wasting critical time on nits.

Phil





>Of course, I may be misunderstanding the OASIS rules.
>
>Alessandro
>
>
>
>  
>