Eve:
All this is okay, except that step #4 is not optional; the TC must
reapprove the CD after the review.
Please send a sentence or two or three to Dee for her to include in the
weekly news. What you've suggested (with the clarification) is about right.
(Sorry if I started a firestorm; I just wanted to make sure that we were
all clear about what this step was and wasn't.)
-Karl
Eve L. Maler wrote:
> I'm keeping the cc list here so people can see the conclusion, but I
> suggested that any finer points should be discussed in private mail.
>
> Karl, since we're doing this at the TC stage and on the TC's
> recognizance only, it's prior to the steps you list below. It's "step
> 0", if you like. It goes like this:
>
> 0. Last-call working draft review
> 1. Approve as CD
> 2. Public review
> 3 and 4. Revise and reapprove as CD (if necessary)
> 5. Vote to submit for OASIS Standard balloting
>
> Note that this step 0 is a practice of long standing in the SSTC (it
> predates the current TC process and the mandated 30-day CD review on the
> way to balloting, for example :-). Now that I understand the text I was
> seeing in the TC process doc, I think it's clear that we need not
> lengthen our planned schedule. But if you're willing to publicize this
> review period, then perhaps we modify the second sentence of my
> suggested blurb to say something like "...and is soliciting review
> comments and implementor feedback prior to preparing Committee Drafts
> (after which time the TC will conduct an additional 30-day CD review)."
>
> Eve
>
> Karl F. Best wrote:
>
>> Rob:
>>
>> You're correct in that the Public Review is optional before the TC
>> finally approves the spec as a Committee Draft *if* that CD is not
>> going to be submitted for consideration as an OASIS Standard. If the
>> CD is going to be submitted then there must be a public review. But as
>> what is sent out for public review must be approved first as a CD,
>> maybe where we're at is the first CD approval.
>>
>> We do it like this: 1) approve as CD, 2) public review, 3) revise, 4)
>> reapprove as CD, 5) vote to submit to OASIS.
>>
>> Steps 1-3 can be repeated as often as desired.
>>
>> My concern is that the TC has invented a new, extra-procedural step
>> named "last call". This is very confusing, both to people who are
>> acquainted with the OASIS process and won't know where this fits, as
>> well as to people who will confuse this with the W3C process.
>>
>> That said, I'm happy for us to announce this "review" (or whatever) to
>> our members; we should just be clear about where this fits in the
>> process to avoid confusion.
>>
>> -Karl
>
>
--
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
Vice President, OASIS
office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648
http://www.oasis-open.org
