Meeting Minutes 18th November 2011. Approved 2nd December 2011.
- Roll: Martin, Dave, Chet, Robin, Jacques, Patrick Agenda: two new items: Chet's Governance proposal, discussion on errata for CS
- Agenda approved as modified
Approved w/o Agreed to post to wiki
- All ongoing except:
- ACTION 20110727-1: first draft published, on agenda.
Citation and spec dependency status:
- Patrick will produce a discussion document listing oasis standards, and citation formats ACTION 20111118-0: Patrick to produce a discussion document listing oasis standards and citation formats, for next meeting.
- Still awaiting feedback - will send a reminder to Rob with an expiration. ACTION 20111118-1: Martin to send a reminder to IBM/Rob, regarding comment resolutions for interop/testing guidelines.
Errata on CS:
- Chet emailed a discussion topic about being able to apply the errata process to a CS. Examples are minor editorial changes that shouldn't require a full process cycle. Two observations: 1) errata process is broken 2) errata process is as "heavyweight" as the regular process. Patrick: no standard is final, so need a maintenance process The longer experience is gained, the more you need a maintenance process. Just use the TC process to produce an updated version Robin: TC Process is quite clear. We don't have a mechanism to alert implementers of potential defects. Martin: might need to move errata process to liaison policy. Dave: we parked the discussion until the maintenance IPR issue was resolved - which it has been. Patrick: a BRM can make substantive changes, so could get out of sync with the oasis version. Need a process to resolve this.
- Dave: Agreed. the BRM decisions are not binding on oasis, so needs to be looked at.
Patrick: Doesn't OASIS, not the TC own the standard?
- Dave: no the TC retains ownership Patrick: we have to address the mismatch between the two processes Chet: Leaving the ISO issue aside, we have an issue with the concept of errata. What is in the process doesn't address the wider maintenance issues. Chet: do we need a defects process as suggested by Robin Chet: should we look at this issue and make some proposal. Dave: is there a requirement for a new process Martin: supports a defect publication process - like making public resolutions of issues raised after publication Chet: looks mostly operational, how much impact on the TC process Robin: get rid of section 3.5, otherwise we the use of the word errata is an issue. Robin: publishing a list of known issues and defects at a predictable place would be ideal - report errors, ongoing issues, status of such etc. put the reference to such a page into the spec. Patrick: +1 to what Robin said. Dave: what about IP Martin: use the comment list to raise issues, publish issues and proposed resolutions next to the standard. Robin: need a better click through mechanism. ACTION 20111118-2: Martin to propose changes to errata and maintenance process. Patrick: what was chet's answer to TC. Chet: Will go back to the TCs and tell them errata is not relevant to CS. Just create a new CS as the process is no longer than doing errata.
Chet's governance proposal:
Chet's first cut: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/email/archives/201111/msg00021.html Trying to document difference between small and big P, what is authoritative or not, how do things get to be authoritative. Martin: clear delineation of document types (rules, policy, guidelines) regardless of who writes them. Need a process of approving such document Members don't really understand the difference between a small p or a big P, rules are rules. Making it easy for them to know the rules, regardless of who writes them, should be a priority Chet: one of the issues is people don't understand why the have do things Chet: does anyone have copies of the whiteboard photos from the F2F?
Checklist for Reviews:
- Ran out of time: discuss next meeting
Jacque's proposal: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/email/archives/201111/msg00003.html Martin's comments: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/email/archives/201111/msg00006.html
Summary of New and Open Action Items:
ACTION 20110727-0: Look at the classification of all the policies and guidelines under http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines and examine re-factoring. (do after governance model)
- ACTION 20110727-3: Robin to Determine whether we should add a "work in progress" field to references in OASIS Deliverables ACTION 20110728-0: Patrick to research citation databases and tool in ietf, w3c, and other orgs
- ACTION 20110729-0: Patrick to Consider proposing a new class of deliverable in the TC Process for source code/test suites etc.
http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/liaison#submitwork ACTION 20111104-0: Patrick to propose citation rules. ACTION 20111104-01: Chet to propose a single page that can be placed on the web that lists ALL the things TCs may need to know ACTION 20111118-0: Patrick to produce a discussion document listing oasis standards and citation formats, for next meeting. ACTION 20111118-1: Martin to send a reminder to IBM/Rob, regarding comment resolutions for interop/testing guidelines. ACTION 20111118-2: Martin to propose changes to errata and maintenance process.