John -
I agree with you. We should use your first
option.
- Peter
From: John Borras
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009
3:41 AM
To: EML TC; James Bryce Clark
Cc: Laurent Liscia;
Mary McRae
Subject: Re: [election-services] Progress and EML
submission status for ISO/IEC JTC1: questions for TC
First let me say many thanks to Jamie for this very full picture of where
we are and the options open to us. We clearly have a very difficult
decision to make now on how to proceed.
There is one other option open to us in addition to those put forward by
Jamie. We could withdraw our JTC1 submission, produce v6 of EML
and then submit that later in the year to JTC1, by which time hopefully the dust
has settled around the current negotiations. We know that v6 will have
some significant improvements over v5 but on past experience could take us most
of this year to get it through the OASIS approval process. That would mean
no ISO approval until next year probably.
My personal goal, and I know it is also that of the UK government, has been
and still remains to get ISO accreditation as soon as possible. We believe
having that badge will help tremendously in getting
national jurisdictions and suppliers on board with
using EML, and that is no disrespect to OASIS it's just that election
officials will have heard of ISO but few have the same understanding of OASIS
and therefore are more sceptical. One other key factor from my point of
view is for us to remain in control of EML. The people on JTC1 have little
or no experience in this field and I know that for a fact from my work with
the Council of Europe committee.
So I would boil the choices for us down to two:
- do we accept Jamie's recommended approach which probably means another
2/3 months delay but has the strong possibility of eventually succeeding,
- or do we withdraw the submission, do v6 and then submit that which means
no ISO approval until next year probably.
I favour the first option and whilst that is going on we continue with
our work on the USA localisation for VIP which can then be brought into a
v6 later in the year.
Can you please let me have your views within the next few days. If
there is no common consensus I will call a TC meeting and hold a vote on the
issue.
Regards
John
M. +44 (0)7976 157745
Skype: gov3john
From: James Bryce Clark
<>
To: EML TC
<>
Cc: Laurent Liscia
<>; Mary McRae
<>
Sent: Tuesday, 6 January, 2009
19:08:15
Subject:
[election-services] Progress and EML submission status for ISO/IEC JTC1:
questions for TC
Members of the Election & Voter Services
TC:
SUMMARY: We have several options for how best to
respond,
and adapt, to significant changes in ISO/IEC
JTC1's
procedures and plans. We must make a tactical decision
about
accelerating, changing or decelerating the OASIS
submission
of EML v5.0. We would appreciate hearing the
opinions of TC
members about these issues.
As you know,
with your approval, we submitted EML v5 to ISO/IEC JTC1
late last year for
its approval as an ISO/IEC standard). JTC1 "PAS"
(Publicly Available
Specification) rules permit it to bring in
specifications approved by
accredited external groups and
essentially endorse them by a re-approval
("transposition"). A
number of standards have completed this process
successfully, and
OASIS has been an accredited PAS submitter since
2004.
JTC1 was slow to respond to our EML submission, but is now ready
to
submit our work to its members (over 35 voting national standards bodies)
for a vote. However, at the same time, we've run into significant changes in the
expectations of JTC1 members about the way that a standard is controlled and
maintained *after* its transposition
approval. Recent events give us some
concern that the terms of submission we proposed, with your approval, may need
to be changed, in order for the vote to succeed. Please note, the
uncertainty is about the "ground rules" going forward for further revision
of the standard, and *not* any dispute about the substance of your work
today.
As described below, it's our advice that the TC consider modifying
our OASIS terms of submission, to anticipate JTC1's changed expectations.
Four options and our recommendation are described below; we request your
input.
BACKGROUND
I put a detailed background discussion in the
next, separate e-mail, so that this one focuses on action. Here's the very
short version: JTC1 is re-examining and rewriting its own rules, about
maintenance of outside submissions, very slowly. There's been controversy
about this. There's still a high degree of mutual trust and regard between
JTC1's members and OASIS. But at the same time, they are struggling to
re-define their rules for submissions, and we don't want EML to get caught in
the downdraft of uncertainty.
Our default position is that the OASIS TC
who creates a submitted standard continues to control it, and sets its own
schedule for taking in feedback from JTC1, and bringing major completed
revisions back to JTC.
As described in the background summary post, that
position has run into some resistance. We're concerned that any new
submission sent in blindly with the same terms would be rejected, now, based on
the procedural issues. In the current standards politics environment,
there are three new factors:
* We are in mid-negotiation
with JTC1 about possible alternative collaborative maintenance
methods.
* JTC1 as a community has both an unclear,
under-revision set of rules for external submissions, and a genuine ambivalence
about those submissions.
* Finally, within OASIS, our own
Board and management are re-examining how best to handle external
submissions.
(Details in the background post.) The third point is
unlikely to affect the EML submission, as OASIS already approved it and sent it
on to JTC1 in mid-2008, before we started to re-examine our own processes.
But the first two points will weigh heavily on EML.
.
ACTIONS
It's our hope that OASIS, by being a good citizen in
this environment, will help define mutually satisfactory and constructive
solutions. But we still face the immediate question of how to handle the
EML submission. Right now, it's in JTC1's hands as we originally submitted
it, after your TC reviewed the draft, with the same basic terms as we used for
ODF v1.0. See the attached "Appendix A" document, which comes from that
submission.
OASIS has four options I can see. Input from the TC
would be helpful to us on which is best.
1. We simply could have
the submission balloted now, as is, by the new JTC1 leadership, who's apparently
happy to launch it at any time. My personal guess, but it's only a guess,
is that it would attract significant opposition, because of the unresolved
issues in the JTC1 polity about maintenance. Regardless of the work
itself.
2. We could submit it now, but after an amendment adding
what we think might be acceptable terms. In the attached copy of "Appendix
A", I've inserted some possible draft changes. These would require some
commitments from the TC, as you can see, so they would need to be acceptable to
you. It has the virtue of moving faster; and the vice of being uninformed
by whatever our conversations with JTC1 will be in the next 30 days.
Personally I think option 3 is wiser.
3. We could hold the
submission back for 30 days, and see if either our first round of conversations,
in late January, or the March conclusion mentioned in the resolution, will let
us more reliably refine the proposed changes set out in option 2 and the
attached markup. In that way, we'd be sending in something better informed
by JTC1 expectations. This is my first preference, tactically, though the
views of others, including the TC and our management and Board, also may weigh
in.
4. Finally, we could send EML somewhere other than JTC1.
Frankly, choosing another forum is a strong move. I don't think it's off
the table, as it's hard to say how the PAS process will fare over the long
run. However, OASIS probably is in the best position of any consortium,
given our good will and track record, to make PAS work. In my view we
ought to do so. Thus, turning to another authority for this work at this
time probably is premature.
Now, none of the foregoing obviate the fact
that the great work you have done, within OASIS, manifestly deserves the further
promotion and higher profile, and has been languishing for all this
"politics". I apologize again to you, for both the situation, and our
inability so far to break logjams to advance it more rapidly. Still, we try not
to let our good work be rejected or fail elsewhere. It's possible that we
were right, that only a negative outcome could have resulted from this
interregnum and re-appraisal period.
We'd appreciate feedback from the
members of the Committee on these options (and any others you see). Among
other things, the TC's views on whether the early draft of "appendix A"
revisions seems like a plausible way forward. We'd also be happy to join
you at a TC meeting if further discussion or questions would be
helpful.
Kind regards and best wishes for a successful and safe new year.
Jamie Clark
~ James Bryce Clark
~ Director of Standards Development,
OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates
this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
