RE: [chairs] Draft Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary

Jeff,

This all makes sense - except what you are calling "non-standard" I'm used to referring as non-normative supporting materials.  I.e. materials that are not required for conformance to the formal specification, but assist in the understanding and implementation thereof.

I believe it may be clearer to use the term non-normative; or maybe even just "supporting materials".

Non-standard - at least for myself - has the connotation that somehow the material in question is somewhat dubious, formative or unproven in nature.

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: [chairs] Draft  Jan 2009 TC Process changes summary

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <>

Date: Thu, January 07, 2010 10:45 pm

To: 

Hi,

   The Process Committee is proposing some additions and modifications  

to the TC Process and is soliciting feedback and comments on this  

"almost" final draft. I've tried to summarize the major and minor  

changes in this email, but you should read the real docs (attached) if  

you'd like to see the detailed changes.

A major focus of the Process Committee for the last two years has been  

to add a "non-standards TC approval" track to the process. There were  

conflicting requirements involving trade-offs between IPR Policy,  

approval processes, reviews, etc. The result which you see before you  

is not quite as delicate a compromise as that surrounding the current  

US health care debates, but its close. :-) I've broken down the  

changes into 3 major components, but please keep in mind that they  

interact with each other, and that they are intended to work together.  

(I've always wanted to use the phrase "synergistic changes" but i will  

refrain.)

   The plan is to consider these changes at the next Board f2f meeting  

at the beginning of February, so we'd like to have feedback and  

comments available by January 25 ( a week or so before the Board  

meeting) so that they can be considered by the Process Committee and  

the Board.

   Attached you will find a redline showing the changes from the  

current policy, and a clean copy. The current policy is on the OASIS  

web site.

Thanks and appreciation are due to Mary McRae (the OASIS TC admin) for  

a yeowoman's job in editing the TC Process doc, and keeping up with  

the various gyrations, drafts, and proposals that the Process  

Committee have produced, debated, thrown away, and finally settled on.

Disclaimer:  Also please note that this email is MY attempt, as TC  

Process Chair, to describe the changes and has not been formally  

approved by the TC Process Committee. (And I'm sure its members will  

chime in with their own comments if they are so moved. ;-)

cheers,

   Jeff Mischkinsky, Chair, OASIS Board TC Process Committee

MAJOR CHANGES:

==============

PUBLIC REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR TC LEVEL APPROVAL (Section 3.2 and 2.18  

A)

------------------------------------------------

The Public Review requirements for TC level approvals have been  

simplified and streamlined, partially to accommodate the addition of a  

non-standards track.

Basically the minimum for initial public review will be 30 days (down  

from 60 days) with subsequent reviews being at least 15 days. ANY  

changes made after a review closes must be submitted again for public  

review.

Section 2.18 has been split to distinguish between Committee Spec (no  

change) and Committee Notes (new)

COMMITTEE NOTES aka "non-standards track work product", aka "info  

docs"  (Section 2.18 B and 3.3)

---------------

The Process Committee has been working for almost 2 years to add a  

"non-standards" TC approval track.

The basic idea is that we've added a means whereby TC's will be able  

to approve as a Committee Note any material that is not intended to be  

a standard. These could be primers, explanatory material, best  

practices (how to use a standard), presentations/papers, test suites,  

etc., that can be "officially" approved as representing the views of  

the TC, etc. They will be covered by the IPR policy. The mechanics of  

the approval process are the same as for a Committee Specification so  

that there is no incentive to classify something as standards track  

vs. non-standards track because one is easier to get approved, i.e.  

can't "game the system".

A non-standards track work product stops at the Committee Note level.  

Therefore it may NOT be put up for an OASIS-wide vote, unlike a  

standards track work product, nor submitted to an outside (de jure)  

body.

Committee Notes will have different templates, cover pages, etc. to  

distinguish them from specifications/standards. They are not intended  

to be normatively referenced by other standards (either inside or  

outside of OASIS), though of course there is no way to actually stop  

someone from doing so (hence the IPR safeguards and rigorous review/ 

approval process).

A TC can choose to "re-target" a work product by deciding to switch  

templates and going back to the CD stage.

Section 2.18 B, which is new, describes the required parts of  

Committee Note. Essentially they are the same as for Committee Specs  

except that a Conformance Clause (B1) and external files for  

programming language artifacts (B5) are optional.

OASIS STANDARD APPROVAL PROCESS (Section 3.4)

-------------------------------

The process from going from Committee Spec to OASIS standard has been  

modified. We've identified a new state for a Committee Spec that a TC  

wishes to advance to OASIS Standard, called a Candidate OASIS Standard  

to clarify things.

The main change is to now require a 60 day public review of the  

Candidate OASIS standard, to ensure that OASIS standards that are  

submitted for international (de jure) standards processing meet their  

review requirements.  This replaces the "familiarization period" under  

the current policy. Candidates may now be submitted at any time (not  

just once a month) and TC admin now has at most 15 days to complete  

processing and start the Public Review.

Once the public review has completed, there are now shortened  

timelines for conducting the subsequent approval votes. The possible  

outcomes of the public review (no comments, comments but no changes  

made as a result, changes made as a result) and the subsequent  

processing rules have been clarified.

Note: The minimum time lines for the public reviews and votes should  

be approximately equal to get to OASIS standard and shorter for  

Committee Spec under the new system.

IMPLEMENTATION PHASE IN

=======================

The Process Committee is going to recommend that non-standards track  

be added "immediately", where "immediately" means something like the  

beginning of the month following Board approval.  Changes to currently  

"in flight" standards track documents will be phased in so that work  

product that is currently "close" to being approved will be subject to  

the old rules. The exact definition of "close" contained in the first  

para of Section 3.4 are still somewhat tentative. (I think it is safe  

to say they would only be loosened, not tightened.)

MORE MINOR CHANGES

==================

1. Uniform 7 day membership deadline for initial TC meeting whether  

f2f or telecon. (2.3)

2. Clarified requirements for comment processing and made clear that  

once a doc is out for public review if someone discovers a major  

"oops" that requires a change before the review period ends, then it  

must be withdrawn and resubmitted for a new public review (if the TC  

so desires). (3.2 2nd and 3rd para)

3. Clarified requirements around which versions of oasis templates to  

use. (3.4.1)

4 Clarified rules around the mechanics of OASIS standard ballots(3.4.3)

5. Various other more minor clarifications, editorial changes, etc.,  

some of which i've probably missed in the above list.

--

Jeff Mischkinsky			          		

Sr. Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware 				+1(650)506-1975

	and Web Services Standards           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 2OP9

Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065