Folks,
I would point people back to the possiblity of using a Blog to
resolve all this.
I've been making extensive use of the free Blogger.com infrastructure
- but there are also open source tools that OASIS could host too.
With some very simple scripting into the HTML side - you can pull the
RSS feeds into Kavi - would take a minute to do.
Blogging for business is a very serious and powerful use of XML - [
that we should be showcasing?!? ; -) ] - and the new Office 12 has this
builtin (there are some tools for MS Word 2003 right now too).
I'm running projects daily using blog tools - along with news feeds,
dialogues / comments, and email thread tracking. Google probably
is going to start charging me soon - since I have nearly 20 of these
things and counting - up and running!!
On Blogger you have full control of both moderated comments and
requiring human key code / account for comments - so this knocks
out spam spiders and people who are just trawling to post ads / virus /
phishing links.
Just a thought...perhaps I should do a WebEx for the OASIS staff to
show-and-tell this...?
DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[chairs] TC FAQ Template
From: "Hal Lockhart"
<>
Date: Tue, February 14, 2006 10:37
am
To: "Robin Cover" <>
Cc: "Carol
Geyer" <>, "Paul
Knight"
<>,
<>
Well, I guess we have been
lucky in SAML and XACML. I have not seen a
lot of SPAM and we not
only get possible FAQs, but also sometimes errata
received outside
of the Public Review cycle.
If the SPAM problem is that bad my
suggestion may not be practical. It
is important to mention why the
comment policy was changed at the same
time as the IPR policy. There
is a legitimate concern about an
unidentified party seeding an OASIS
Standard with ideas protected by
patents. This kind of thing has
actually happened in other Standards
orgs.
On XACML, we
respond directly to the email address provided. Often the
question
is a good candidate for an FAQ, or a hint that the document is
not
clear enough. In some cases, comments have been accepted as
errata.
Hal
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
Robin Cover [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, February
13, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: Hal Lockhart
> Cc: Carol Geyer; Paul
Knight;
> Subject: RE: [chairs] TC
FAQ Template
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Hal Lockhart
wrote:
>
> > Every TC has a public comment list.
Historically, something like
> > half of the comments are
actually questions. I suggest the FAQ
> > template simply
point readers to the public comment list for the TC.
>
>
> > Hal
>
>
> For some TCs,
historically, something like half (or more) of the
> "comments"
are actually spam. [1]
>
> Pointing readers from the TC's
FAQ document (template) to the public
> comment list might not be
the optimal solution:
>
> a) spam in the comment list
archives may suggest to a casual
> reader that the
comment form facility is broken, or otherwise
>
unsiutable as a mean of getting an answer to a question
>
> b) some TCs might feel that use of the TC public comment
list
> for Q&A will "screw up our comment
tracking" [2]
>
> c) asking a question on the TC public
comment list involves
> trying to use a
communication channel that has been
> deliberately
crippled by a change in the TC Process [3]
>
> I say
"crippled" in "c)" because at one time, it was permissible
> to
use the public comment list for general public discussion of
the
> TC work. That allowed someone to ask a question, receive an
answer,
> request a clarification, receive a clarified answer, and
so forth
> (dialogue, discussion). According to the memory of some
(including
> my memory) that was originally the intended purpose
of of the
> comment list. [4]
>
> Rules for use of
the comment list as a two-way communication
> channel were
changed when the TC Process was altered to read
> "comment
facility", with the stipulation that discussion would
> not be
countenanced; see now TC Process 2.8 TC Visibility"
> "... a
means to collect public comments" ... "The purpose of the
> TC's
public comment facility is to receive comments from the
> public
and is not for public discussion."
>
> Use of the comment
form instead of direct email opened up
> a hole for spammers [5],
and the TC Chairs seemed not
> entirely happy with the change
[6].
>
> Irrespective of the spam problem, which may be
fixed by
> reverting back to email: Questions are clearly
different than
> comments in terms of human communication
process.
>
> Within OASIS Staff, I am now trying to create
consensus around the
> position that OASIS should support
archived, two-way communication
> (discussion, dialogue) between
the TCs and the public. Some
> TCs use the *-dev lists for
common questions; others feel
> that the *-dev lists should be
reserved for technical details
> of implementation, not for
garden-variety questions from
> interested members of the public
who think of themselves as
> possible users, not as
"developers".
>
> Robin Cover
>
>
-----------
>
> [1] spammed lists (examples):
>
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200602/maillist.html
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-enotary-
>
comment/200601/maillist.html
>
> [2] Jon Bosak, "Misuse of
ubl-comment list
>
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200410/msg00004.html
>
> [3] Whereas originally, according to some versions of history,
the
> TC comment list was *specifically* designed as a mechanism
to support
> two-way dialogue and discussion [4], the TC Process
change was
> designed to prevent discussion
>
> [4]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00026.html
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00027.html
>
> Jon Bosak: "Actually, the intent of the comment lists *was* to
provide
> a forum for public discussion. It's a feature of
the OASIS process
that
> I've pointed to with pride in
presentations to thousands of people
> over the last couple of
years. Guess I'll have to stop doing
> that. -- Jon
>
> Contrast Karl Best:
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200206/msg00003.html
>
> "This is supposed to be a one-way pipe to get public comments
into the
TC.
> Admittedly some TCs have stretched this a bit
to make them discussion
> lists, which I haven't fought too much
against, but the original (and
> true)
> purpose is
comments"
>
> [5]
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200312/msg00009.html
>
> Norm
> "I see. Unfortunately, you've also
opened a hole into which spammers
> can throw things[1].
And there are plenty of spamming spiders out
> there smart
enough to do so."
>
> [6] Comments about the comment
form
>
> ** Lauren Wood
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00011.html
>
> ** Drummond Reed
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00012.html
>
> ** Rich Thompson
>
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00013.html
>
> ** Heather Kreger
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00022.html
>
> "What's the purpose of excluding any public discussion for
TC's?
> Having a public an TC private list is fairly common
practice in
> other organizations I've been involved in (W3C,
JCP) and it was
> appreciated...
>
> ** Rich
Thompson
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00023.html
>
> ** Drummond Reed
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00024.html
>
> "Dropping active public comment lists appears to be a
step
> down in openness. That's generally not a good thing. Are
there
> particular reasons driving the change?"
>
>
** Ram Kumar
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00027.html
>
> "I 100% agree with Jon. It *was* indeed a great tool for
public
> discusson. I always advised the public whoever I came
across..."
>
> ** Karl Best
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00028.html
>
> ** Robert Philpott
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00030.html
>
> "I do worry a bit about not being able to ask follow-up
questions
> without engaging in private email exchanges that
should probably
> be kept public."
>
> ** Rex
Brooks
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200309/msg00067.html
>
> ... I have to say that I
> find the current policy to
have, in effect, killed the public comment
> lists, to the
detriment of the TCs and OASIS at large at a time when
> many of
us are trying our best to improve the stature of OASIS in the
>
arena of standards bodies. This is a shame,...
>
>
===
>
>
> >
> > > -----Original
Message-----
> > > From: Carol Geyer
[mailto:]
> > > Sent: Friday,
February 10, 2006 2:50 PM
> > > To: 'Paul Knight';
> > > Subject: RE: [chairs] TC
FAQ Template
> > >
> > > Good point,
Paul.
> > >
> > > Many Committees, such as the
OASIS Security Services TC
> > (http://www.oasis-
> >
> open.org/committees/security/faq.php), include a statement
>
> > such as "If you have a question that is not answered here, or
if
you
> > have
> > > questions or comments on
any of the answers provided, feel
> > > free to contact the
editor <link to an email address of a TC
member
> >
who
> > > has taken on the responsibility for maintaining
the FAQ>."
> > >
> > >
> > > If
anyone has other ideas for encouraging reader input to
FAQs,
please
> > let
> > > me know.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Carol
> >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
From: Paul Knight [mailto:]
> > >
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:37 AM
> > > To: Carol
Geyer;
> > > Subject: RE:
[chairs] TC FAQ Template
> > >
> > > Hi
Carol,
> > >
> > > Is there any way for FAQ
readers to actually ASK a Question?
(other
> > than
>
> > the mailing list?) One great frustration with most FAQs
is
> > > that they don't answer the questions people really
want to ask,
> > because
> > > there is actually no
clear way to A a Q.
> > >
> > > Regards,
>
> > Paul Knight
> > >
> > > >
-----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Carol Geyer
[mailto:]
> > > > Sent:
Friday, February 10, 2006 10:54 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: [chairs] TC
FAQ Template
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > OASIS Committee Chairs:
> > > > Each OASIS TC
is provided with an FAQ page, linked from the
upper
> >
> > right column of the TC's public homepage. This FAQ is a
very
> > important
> > > > resource for helping
prospective members, press, analysts, and
OASIS
> > >
> staff better understand your work.
> > > >
>
> > > The OASIS Technical Advisory Board has compiled a list
of
generic
> > > > questions that provide a basis for
all TC FAQs. This is a great
way
> > to
> > >
> get started writing your FAQ, but naturally, you are free to
add
> > > > questions specific to your work. Also, keep
in mind that edits
to
> > > > posted FAQ can be made
at any time.
> > > >
> > > > Please take
a moment to review your TC's FAQ page. Send new text
or
> >
> > edits to me, and we'll get them posted as soon as
possible.
> > > >
> > > > Again, *all*
OASIS Committees should provide information on
their
> >
FAQ
> > > > pages. It is particularly crucial for TC's
preparing to submit
work
> > > > for approval. Press
releases announcing new OASIS Standards must
> > > >
reference an updated FAQ.
> > > >
> > > >
TAB Recommended Questions:
> > > >
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/download.php/
>
> > 11675/tab-generic-faq-approved.txt
> > >
>
> >
> > > Many thanks,
> > >
Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
______________________________
> > > Carol Geyer
>
> > Director of Communications
> > > OASIS
>
> > Voice: +1.978.667.5115 x209
> > >
> >
> OASIS Symposium: The Meaning of Interoperability
> > >
9-12 May, San Francisco
> > >
http://www.oasis-open.org/events/symposium_2006/
> >
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
