Subcommittee Reorganization - common meeting

Based on taking notes and doing minutes, I must disagree somewhat with "virtually identical answers with respect to workload". Alex stated he had more work than people to do it.  My overall assessment of workload, as discussed at the TC meeting would be
AP-SC - highest workload  IC-SC  - moderate workload  L-SC - lowest workload
What all co-chairs did commonly report was a concern about attendance at SC meetings and level of involvement. As Duncan and others have described the best way to address this may be for the small number of participants to be getting black-on-white in order to prompt feedback and improvement from interested parties. I think it's fair to say that at least the IC-SC meetings have drifted away from specifics toward generalities since the specifications were approved, and moving back toward specifics might prove useful.
WRT to specifics, I was happy to see Duncan's email about SBoM AP content and look forward to reviewing it.
Dave
David Lemire,
CISSP
Systems Engineer
HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions (HII-MDIS)
formerly G2, Inc.
Technical Solutions Division
302 Sentinel Drive
Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701
Email:

Work:  301-575-5190
Mobile:  240-938-9350

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:50 AM duncan  sfractal.com  < 
> wrote:
I disagree with
the relative work loads
.  As you recall, on the evening monthly TC call I asked the same questions of all three SC s and got virtually identical answers with respect to workload. I personally think the IC-SC has the highest workload, and I think my plugfest experience also supports  this (more opensource, more transfer/transport specs).
Wrt
boiling all the subcommittees into a single timeslot
I agree that I d prefer each SC meet on it s own for the reasons Michelle gave
and note she was explaining why NOT to combine the LSC and IC-SC. I m just arguing that if we must combine, then combine them all. I still maintain AP/IC have more in common than  L/IC, but I d prefer we remain with 3.
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:  Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 8:14 AM
To:  'Vasileios Mavroeidis' <  >, "  " < 
>
Cc:  TC OpenC2 < 
>
Subject:  RE: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - common meeting
Vasileios,
Understood.
Duncan,
In addition to the reasons I pointed out earlier in this email chain, AP SC was  singled out  due to the relative work loads.  Inspection of the number and scope  of the action items from the plug fest validates the hypothesis.
The notion of boiling all the subcommittees into a single timeslot with a common agenda is a different topic and (my opinion) would be an error for the reasons  that Michelle Barry pointed out circa Feb 18.  (Diluting the expertise and focus of the SC, these are different concerns, the appropriate means to address the time and attendance issue is via changing the tempo and she stated better than I could so advise  reread her email rather than have me plagiarize. )
Regards
Joe B
From:
  < 
>  On Behalf Of  Vasileios Mavroeidis
Sent:  Tuesday, February 25, 2020 4:47 AM
To:  duncan  sfractal.com  < 
>
Cc:  OASIS OpenC2 List < 
>
Subject:  [Non-DoD Source] Re: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - common meeting
I meant exactly what Duncan described. Common meetings, and one agenda that dividesallocates time based on the requirements of each committee.
-Vasileios
On 25 Feb 2020, at 02:06, duncan
sfractal.com  < 
> wrote:
RE:  So the LS-SC and the IC-SC should meet together and have a common agenda (for an indefinite period)
&
If we have common meeting times and common agendas, then isn t that a single subcommittee?
Common agendas can have multiple meaning
it could just mean they each get their piece of the overall agenda.
I do like the idea of  trialing  the meetings before changing our formal organization. This would give us data on what differences occurred and whether it was an improvement.
I am against singling out 2 of the 3 subcommittees. I still don t understand why the LSC/ICSC are the two to combine.
We could consider a periodic (every 2 weeks? Every month?) 1-hour meeting that had a nominal agenda of the first 20 min for LSC, the second 20 min for AP-SC, and the third  20 min for IC-SC. I picked equal times because of my polling of the SC cochairs at the last TC meeting. But I would expect the numbers to vary weekly. We would be flexible based on agenda topics
eg if LSC had less, then it would get less. Each section of  meeting would still be run by respective SC cochairs. At the cochair tagup the cochairs could do the time/agenda allocation for the following week.
Duncan Sparrell
sFractal Consulting LLC
iPhone, iTypo, iApologize
I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at
http://vsre.info  /
From:
Joseph Brule < 
>
Date:
Monday, February 24, 2020 at 12:54 PM
To:
Dan Solero <  >, Vasileios Mavroeidis < 
>
Cc:
"  " <  >, TC OpenC2 < 
>
Subject:
RE: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - for/against/neither
Dan, Vasileios,
I am not trying to be flippant or anything like that, I honestly don t understand something.  If we have common meeting times and common agendas, then isn t that  a single subcommittee?
I have always liked the notion of co-chairs, provides a backup (in the event that somebody has a life and goes on vacation or whatever).  Keeping the co-chairs  down to two people allows for agility.  Four co-chairs could be a little clumsy and I think OASIS has a rule that you can have at most two.
In the context of separation of concerns, I am confident that most of us can agree with that.  I don t think that formally defining separate subcommittees is  required to make that happen.  It is reasonable to assume that if we succumb to our totalizing instincts, then we can trust our colleagues to remind us
Regarding participation: OpenC2 is my first rodeo, so the following is an uneducated opinion.  Am I concerned with the fact that we have over 100 people in the  TC and fewer than a dozen at any particular SC meeting?  Well yes, I am.  I don t know if it is a natural lull, a lack of interest, or if it is due to people actively undermining us, but...
I will take the results of the first Plug Fest as an indication that there is genuine interest in OpenC2.
I suspect that there are some people who are actively making efforts to undermine OpenC2, but I would guess that there are very  few.
I suspect that surges and lulls are normal. We are seeing a number of topics in the AP-SC and as we gain experience, we will  identify needed changes and activity will increase.
NOTE:  Those three bullets were my uneducated opinion.
Regardless of the reason, I doubt that the SC organization will significantly impact the likelihood of a person participating (or not).  Getting a draft released  for comment will do much more for participation.  (Again, that was my uneducated opinion)
I agree with the notion of leaving the AP-SC as is and combining the LSC and IC-SC, but I am not at the point where I am going to ask anyone to choose pistols  or sabers.  I am fine with whatever the majority decides.
VR
Joe Brule
From:

< 
>
On  Behalf Of
SOLERO, DAN
Sent:
Monday, February 24, 2020 9:48 AM
To:
Vasileios Mavroeidis <  >; Brule, Joseph M < 
>
Cc:
duncan
sfractal.com
<  >;  OASIS OpenC2 List < 
>
Subject:
[Non-DoD Source] RE: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - for/against/neither
I agree with Vasileios.  Unless there is some compelling reason for reorganization beyond time effectiveness, sharing meeting times would seem to be a good compromise position.
Dan
From:

< 
>
On  Behalf Of
Vasileios Mavroeidis
Sent:
Monday, February 24, 2020 7:53 AM
To:

Cc:
Vasileios Mavroeidis <  >; duncan
sfractal.com
<  >;  OASIS OpenC2 List < 
>
Subject:
Re: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - for/against/neither
I would keep the organizational structure the way it is. I don t think that re-organization will foster higher participation right now, but I do understand that having one  group will allow more people to stay in the loop by aggregating them all together at this point . I would say keep separation of concerns but merge the meetings. So the LS-SC and the IC-SC should meet together and have a common agenda (for an indefinite period).
-Vasileios
On 24 Feb 2020, at 13:25, Brule, Joseph M < 
> wrote:
Willing to go along with it either way.
From:
duncan
sfractal.com
< 
>
Sent:
Sunday, February 23, 2020 8:29 AM
To:
Brule, Joseph M <  >; OASIS OpenC2 List < 
>
Subject:
[Non-DoD Source] Subcommittee Reorganization - for/against/neither
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/