OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xliff message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: TC Meeting Nov 1, 2011, Agenda Item 3.2

Hi all, 
following the e-mail discussions and informal discussion on teleconference last week, I hope that this week the TC meeting will reach the quorum and will be able to vote on its feature approval procedure.

This is to amend my previous ballot proposals on the feature approval procedure.. Hereby my previous proposals are replaced.
This is one of the cases when the Working Charter Discussion needs to resurface from the SC, where it was moved by the kavi ballot initiated by Rodolfo and seconded by several.
To the best of my knowledge, there is a consensus that there was enough discussion of this point, and everyone is clear about the options.. To the best of my knowledge, the ballot mechanics and options as presented below do represent all viable options that various TC members have seen for this procedure. I trust that the proposed ballot mechanics will lead us to a good process that everyone on the TC will respect.

[Ballot proposal start]

I suggest that we 
i) Decide between the general alternatives [EITHER A, OR B]
ii) Only in case B wins, we decide for one of the alternatives of features leaving prison [EITHER B 1, OR B 2, OR B 3]
iii) Only in case ii) was inconclusive, we decide between the two B options that received most votes.
iv) After i)-iii) yielded conclusive results, we vote for the whole resulting 

Feature approval procedure


Feature approval procedure

Features not listed here:
will not be considered at all for inclusion in any XLIFF 2.x spec.

The feature tracking wiki comprises three sections. 1. Approved, 2. Under Consideration, 3. Discarded.

Section 2. Features under consideration is the default section:http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xliff/XLIFF2.0/FeatureTracking#Featuresunderconsideration.28notyetevaluatedbyTC.29

Any TC member can record a feature in Section 2., preferably following an e-mail or meeting discussion.

Features can be moved into section 1. or 3. only following a formal TC ballot.

Features can be proposed for ballot in a regular TC meeting by the listed Owner (Champion) or the TC Chair.

Owners must demonstrate to the TC not only the technical appropriateness of the feature but also explain what resources and timeframe is needed for elaboration and if those resources are available.

TC Chair can suggest moving a feature from Section 1. to section 2. Or even 3. if it does not show reasonable progress close to XLIFF 2.x spec release deadline.

[General alternatives for features leaving section 3]


A. Any TC member can suggest reconsideration of an item in section 3, and no additional conditions apply.


B. Only the Owner can suggest reconsideration of an item in section 3.

[Alternative additional conditions for reconsideration of items in section 3:]


B 1.      Majority of *all* voting members needed (via kavi to all eligible, or also possible if the meeting majority is at the same time the majority of all current voting members).


B 2.      Not sooner than 3 months after the item was placed in Section 3.


B 3.      No additional conditions.


Approval of core features

Only features in the Section 1. Approved Features can be proposed for XLIFF 2.x Core.

This is recorded as “Core/Module: [Not determined/Core/Module]”

Otherwise the procedure is the same as feature approval.

A feature moving away from Section 1. gets its core status set to “Module”

“Not determined” is being used as initial value only, all subsequent changes are between “Core” and “Module” only.

[Ballot proposal end]

David Filip, Ph.D.
cellphone: +353-86-049-34-68
Please use david.filip@ul.ie for LRC business
www.davidf.org, http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidfatdavidf

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]