Re: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - Focus

I am against reorganizing.


  LSC and ICSC serve two entirely different areas of standardization.

  Language specs are meant to be rigid and comprehensive. Implementations are given to experimentation, fast moving tech landscape and are fluid by nature.  The mechanics of the two
  are entirely different
 The LSC addresses the  What  and ICSC addresses the  How . Separation of concerns is generally a good things, and allows each group to maintain focus on what it is meant to be doing
  Regards
  -Sudeep
From:
<> on behalf of "duncan sfractal.com" <>
Date:  Monday, February 24, 2020 at 12:28 PM
To:  "Brule, Joseph M" <>, OASIS OpenC2 List <>
Subject:  [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - Focus



CAUTION
:
External email. Do not click links or open
  attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.



  I am against reorganizing.
  I still don t understand the reason for reorganizing.
  The TC exists to create standards/committee-specifications/committee-notes. These are documents. I believe we should be organized around the documents we create.

  The LSC is responsible for the language specification, the draft glossary, the draft architecture document, support for a language schema document (eg JADN).
  The APSC is responsible for the SLPF spec and a plethora of other actuator profile specifications, one per actuator profile.
  The ICSC is responsible for the HTTPS spec and a plethora of other transfer/transport specifications, one per transfer/transport. The ICSC is also responsible for the  implementation considerations  like the draft  Information Assurance
  Implementation Considerations  and the draft  OpenC2 Ecosystem Considerations . The ICSC is also responsible for the github repos for opensource implementations of OpenC2.

  I do not see how combining any 2 of these three changes the amount of work that needs to be done.


  I agree with the points Michelle Barry made in her 17-Feb email about focus, meeting cadence, etc. These reasons argue against reorganizing.

  The work is the work. It will take what it will take. I think either/both of two other solutions are better:

  Have meeting agendas with topics published prior to meeting. If no interest
cancel the meeting or have a perfunctory short meeting. SC meetings should be to review text and/or resolve
  differences on issues (ie decide between alternative versions of text and or create new hybrid text). Text should be developed by proponents offline
Do away with SC meetings entirely and have TC  working sessions . We tried both originally and favored the SC meeting approach. Some other TC s (notably CTI) kept their SC structure
  but went to TC working sessions. I still favor SC meetings but if we want to change then we should at least consider the working session approach.



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/