RE: [xri] Thoughts about process for getting to cd02

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

As TC Co-chair, I want to echo and amplify what Mike is saying.

We have, until now, been very consistent about following a process
whereby we discuss issues (as driven by one or more requirements that
have been documented either in the email list, a wiki, or the
requirements doc), followed by agreement on the general approach to the
solution, and proposals to address the issue and proposed specification
additions or changes. 

It seems to me that many of the current change proposals are *not*
driven by this process. Take for example
"http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/Xri2Cd02/ReSolution/I8ResolutionRefactor
" - following all the links there, I see no discussion of what the
problem being addressed is, and we certainly haven't had any time to
discuss how that problem might be addressed. All we are given is a
change/addition proposal. There is no statement in the word document
("local-and-proxy-resolution-proposal-v1" that what is currently
specific in CD-01 has any issues with providing the desired
functionality. And furthermore, the desired functionality isn't even
described outside of the change proposal to implement the desired
functionality. 

Another example is I9 "Refactoring the $res namespace". What is the
purpose of this change? 

We need to be much more disciplined in adopting these changes. The bar
for changes should not be "is there a better way to do this than whats
in CD-01", the bar should be "is the current way of doing things
completely unworkable". And if you say the current way is totally
unworkable, then we needs to rationalize why we thought it *was*
workable in January of 2005 when we voted *affirmatively* on CD-01. I'm
not hearing any of this sort of discussion.

To repeat, the only reasons I see for change at this point are: 1) we
made a mistake in CD-01 that breaks functionality (errata), 2) we forgot
to meet a requirement discussed *before* CD-01 (we agreed to do
something in CD-01 but didn't) 3) we have a new/changed requirement
since CD-01 that we absolutely need to meet for adoption (and this is a
high bar - this is not "nice to haves" - the XRI-in-HTTP-URIs proposal
might fall into this category).

It feels to me that CD-01 is pretty close to what (I had thought) we all
wanted. If what the TC goals have changed, then we should explicitly
discuss that change. If what we want has not changed, then we have to
discuss *specifically* whats wrong or missing with CD-01 and how we can
fix it, rather than simply proposing changes.

	-Gabe



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 9:31 AM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Thoughts about process for getting to cd02
> 
> All,
> 
> It's becoming clear to me that we've skipped a very important step in
> going from cd01 to cd02.  We really need to have all of the 
> requirements
> for the various issues stated.  I'm finding that every time we discuss
> an issue, additional unstated requirements are uncovered.  
> While we can
> review proposals, we can't understand their context or the feasability
> of alternative solutions without understanding *all* of the 
> requirements
> behind each issue.
> 
> I don't belive that we can come to consensus on the majority of the
> proposals without seeing the requirements for them.  My preference is
> that for each issue, requirements are posted and then discussed on the
> list.  That will let us agree, as a TC, as to which requirements are
> ones that we want to tackle in cd02.  After that agreement, 
> we can work
> on proposals for fitting those agreed upon requirements into the XRI
> architecture and specifications.
> 
> While this might take some time and effort, it will 
> ultimately give us a
> better spec -- and one that satisfies the needs of the TC members.
> 
> Mike
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all 
> your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> oups.php 
> 
>