I do not really care if we consolidate SCs or not, so long as there is enough leadership willing to step up and do work over the long-term. If there is not, then we should consolidate.
The work is the work and it will get done or not done depending on people s contributions and the time they have to give, NOT on the organizational structure.
So the way I see it, we struggle to get people to step and lead, so that is the biggest indicator of come level of consolidation.
Standards work is hard and takes a long time. It is also important to help foster an engaged and active community. All of which takes time.
CTI at one point had 4 SCs. Then about 2 years ago consolidated two SCs into one. CTI has also around the same time consolidated down the meetings to 1 meeting per week. Now CTI is at 1 meeting every other week. The natural evolution of work in a standards body.
Bret
Sent from my Commodore 64
PGP Fingerprint:
63B4 FC53 680A 6B7D 1447 F2C0 74F8 ACAE 7415 0050
On Feb 23, 2020, at 6:28 AM, duncan sfractal.com <> wrote:
ï
It would be very helpful to understand what more people think about the reorganization. Please respond with where you are on the issue. Are you strongly for it, for it, strongly against it, against it, willing to go along with the majority either way, don t really care, other thoughts?
My concern is my standards experience tells me that most people will keep quiet on issues like this and vote yes because they trust the leadership. In this case the leadership is divided. Being honest, I happen to be against the reorganization for the reasons I ve stated in all my other emails, slack message, etc. So the vote yes because everyone votes yes hurts my case and therefore I m trying to distinguish between the not raising objection and the actually for .
It would be very useful to get more input
even if you say I really don t care .
Duncan Sparrell
sFractal Consulting LLC
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info /
From:
TC OpenC2 <> on behalf of Joseph Brule <>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 1:09 PM
To: TC OpenC2 <>
Subject: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization
All,
A reorganization of the subcommittees was proposed during the January 2020 TC meeting. The purpose of this email is to present the resolution, provide background information and initiate deliberations on the topic. Once the deliberations are complete, Dave Lemire will generate an electronic ballot in accordance with the direction provided by the TC during the February TC meeting.
NOTE: Review the deliberations and if you believe that I did not capture the point correctly in the summary of the deliberations then provide the correction and/or provide additional points. If there is an error, then accept that it was an honest mistake on my part.
FURTHER NOTE: SLACK messages are not available to all our members. I will attempt to transfer any SLACK messages to the oasis email relay, but it is preferred if you use this email as the medium for deliberations.
RESOLVED: The OpenC2 Technical Committee shall form a new subcommittee to be known as the Language and Architecture Subcommittee . Upon formation of the new subcommittee, the Language Subcommittee and the Implementation Considerations Subcommittee shall transfer their activities to the new subcommittee.
Background
A proposal to transfer the activities of the LSC and ICSC to a new SC was proposed during the January Monthly TC
The general consensus was to revisit the issue after the Plug Fest and email deliberations
Objections were raised during the February Monthly TC meeting.
There was general consensus with the approach of continuing the deliberations via email and upon conclusion of the email deliberations a decision will be made via electronic ballot.
After the Plug Fest, the proposed new subcommittee was brought up via email.
The net effect is to combine the LSC and ICSC into a single subcommittee
The AP SC will maintain its current tempo and leadership
Objections to the proposal were made known via email on Feb 18, 2020.
Summary of Deliberations
Statement FOR
Level of effort required to revise and maintain is substantially less than the initial draft
The scope of the LSC and IC-SC are at a 'systems' or architectural level while the scope of the AP-SC is at a 'component' level therefore logical to combine the 'system' or 'architectural' tasks in one subcommittee and the 'component' tasks in a separate subcommittee
The results of the Plug Fest seem to validate the proposal in that the vast majority of the issues identified were component level
Statement AGAINST
Should retain separate subcommittees to retain their focus and maintain separation of concerns
Several (structured) subcommittees permit attendees to focus their attention on their areas of interest and expertise and avoid diluting the meeting.
Rebuttal to the statement AGAINST
No rebuttal offered
Rebuttal to the statement FOR
The reduced workload is more appropriately addressed by changing the cadence of the meeting rather than broaden the scope of the subcommittee.
Do not agree that the current Language and IC-SC are more similar to each other, in fact [one individual] thinks that the AP-SC has more in common with the LSC than the IC-SC.
Joe Brule
Engineering (Y2D122)
FNX-3, B4A335
410.854.4045
'Adnius ad retinedam puritem noster peciosus corporalis fluidorum '
I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at
http://vsre.info/
