OASIS policy for handling public review comments / What needs to be done for the "Lightweight DITA: An Introduction" review?

OASIS has very clear policies for handling public review
        comments. (These rules apply whether or not the review of is
      a standard work track product (spec) or a non-standards track work
      product (committee note).

    
You can view the rules at
https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2017-05-26#publicReview
      , but here is a brief summary:

    
      
All review comments (e-mails to TC list or e-mails to
        dita-comment) must be formally acknowledged.

      
All review comments must be formally tracked.

      
At the close of the review, the TC must post to its e-mail
        list how it handled each review comment.

    
    
As spec editors, Robert and I handled the tracking for the DITA
      1.2 and 1.3 releases in several ways:

    
      
DITA 1.2: We used a Wiki page to track the comments and
        generated a PDF of it for the formal posting.

      
DITA 1.3: We used a Wiki page to track the comments and
        generated a PDF of it for the formal posting. We tracked the
        changes to the source files in a spreadsheet:

      

      
        
(Wiki page: Review #2)
          https://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/PublicReviewDITA1.3-60Day

        

        
(E-mail to TC list):
          https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201511/msg00083.html

        
(Spreadsheet in SVN):
http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/dita/trunk/spec/dita-1.3-change-log-2.xlsx

      
      
DITA 1.3 Errata 01: We used a DITA topic to track the
        comments; the changes to the source were tracked explicitly in
        the "Errata 01 document":

      
        
(DITA source):
http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/dita/trunk/spec/errata-01/comment-resolution-log-dita-1.3-errata-01.dita

        

        
(E-mail to TC list):
          https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201610/msg00102.html

        

      
    
    
When you do a public review of a document, you need to track the
      changes that you make to the source -- especially to determine
      whether or not they are "material." If changes are "material,"
      then the document needs to go out for additional public reviews
      until no more material changes are made.

    
My personal opinion: Using a DITA topic to track comments, their
      resolution, etc. was the best approach. The only drawback was that
      we had to generate output in order for TC members to see work in
      progress. Robert, your thoughts?

    
Obviously, there is work to be assigned and processes to be
        clarified:

    
      
Who acknowledges each comment on the dita-comment list?

      
Who maintains the comment resolution log?

      
Whether to use a Wiki page or DITA topic for the comment
        resolution log?

      
Which comments are brought to the TC for discussion? Which
        comments will editors immediately fix and then notify the TC?

      
Does the subcommittee want to play an intervening role? For
        example, does subcommittee make tentative comment resolution and
        then refer to the TC? (Note: This will take more time.)

      

    
    
Lots to talk over and digest. I apologize in advance for the
      lengthy e-mail, but I don't see how I could have made it shorter.

    

    
-- 

      Best,

      Kris

      

      Kristen James Eberlein

      Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee

      Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting

      www.eberleinconsulting.com

      +1 919 682-2290; kriseberlein (skype)