=============================================================

Minutes TAB call (April 22, 2016)

=============================================================

Info

Time: 2pmET

Dial:

Host confcall: OASIS

US Toll Free: +1 641 715-3822

Chat room: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/tab

Agenda

1) Roll call

2) Approval of agenda

3) Approval of minutes

4) Status of public reviews

5) Status of open action items

6) Start discussing how to investigate 'Develop proposals for improving the feedback from public reviews'

7) Start thinking about projects we would be interested in doing in 2016/2017

8) AOB

Minutes

1) Roll call
Attending: Ashok, Chet, Jacques, Kevin, Patrick

2) Approval of agenda
No discussion of agenda. No objections to unanimous approval. Agenda approved.

3) Approval of minutes
Draft minutes, April 8th - https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/email/archives/201604/msg00016.html
No discussion of minutes. No objections to unanimous approval. Minutes approved.

4) Status of public reviews
Current public reviews:

- Business Document Naming and Design Rules Version 1.0, ends May 5th (https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/public-review-for-business-document-naming-and-design-rules-v1-0-from-the-ubl-tc-)

- UBL Naming and Design Rules Version 3.0, ends May 5th (https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-ubl-naming-and-design-rules-v3-0-from-ubl-tc-ends-may-5t)

- Business Document Envelope (BDE) Version 1.1, ends May 20th (https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-business-document-envelope-v1-1-ends-may-20th)

5) Status of open action items

* Chet - contact Carol Geyer about adding citation lists to Policies & Guidelines page.
Leave open for now.

* TAB - review proposed edits and new text of conformance clause document
Ongoing.

6) Start discussing how to investigate 'Develop proposals for improving the feedback from public reviews'

Discussion started on question of whether participation in TCs is producing standards accepted and adopted by overall IT industry and asking what we could do to attract more participants. Pattern in most TCs is a small group doing the work, larger group watching and commenting occasionally.

Also noted that pattern generally is that there are few comments back. Noted that it is the same in other orgs. Patrick noted that few people other than the editors ever read the spec. Even the W3C has little feedback on its specs.

Noted that for many specs in first time review, especially larger specs like we've seen recently, 30 days isn't enough time to do a review. Noted that people are likely to see review limited windows to review an entire spec as an obstacle to providing feedback at all.

Jacques raised the idea that public review might be a continuous activity during spec development. E.g. that spec was someplace easily accessible by community. Feedback could be received constantly and TC could revise in response to feedback. That could change perception of public reviews from something to be avoided to being a desirable part of the overall evolution of a spec. The TC could quickly post fixes in response to comments so that the process of review was more interactive and real time.

Patrick notes that the W3C makes this approach work. W3C is moving towards managing their specs on github.

[NOTE: this came up in the DITA TC just recently. See https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/201604/msg00054.html. "Does it feel to anyone else that we are dealing with many of the pitfalls of 90's-style waterfall development?"]

Tabled for further consideration at our next meeting.

AI to Chet: write up a summary of PR comments so far.

7) Start thinking about projects we would be interested in doing in 2016/2017

Chet sent some suggestions in https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201604/msg00037.html. No comments yet. Carried over to next meeting.

Next meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 6th at 2:00 EDT.

Minutes respectfully submitted on 03 May by Chet Ensign.

Chat log

Chet: Agenda:
Chet: 1) Roll call

2) Approval of agenda

3) Approval of minutes
Draft minutes, April 8th - https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/tab/email/archives/201604/msg00016.html

4) Status of public reviews
Ongoing PRs:

- Business Document Naming and Design Rules Version 1.0, ends May 5th (https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/public-review-for-business-document-naming-and-design-rules-v1-0-from-the-ubl-tc-)

- UBL Naming and Design Rules Version 3.0, ends May 5th (https://www.oasis-open.org/news/announcements/30-day-public-review-for-ubl-naming-and-design-rules-v3-0-from-ubl-tc-ends-may-5t)

Upcoming PRs:
- Business Document Envelope (BDE) 1.1 CSPRD01 - launch next week

5) Status of open action items

* Chet - contact Carol Geyer about adding citation lists to Policies & Guidelines page.

6) Start discussing how to investigate 'Develop proposals for improving the feedback from public reviews'

7) Start thinking about projects we would be interested in doing in 2016/2017

8) AOB

Chet: ============ chat log =============
anonymous morphed into Ashok
Chet: 1 - Roll call: Attending - Ashok, Chet, Jacques
Chet: Kevin?
Chet: 2 - agenda
Chet: Jacques: conformance clause deliberately missing? CHet: Yes. no further dis. no objs. approved.
Chet: 3 - previous mintues
Chet: no discussion, no objs. approved.
Chet: Kevin joins
Chet: 4 - status of public reviews
Chet: Business Doc Envelope not open for PR - ends May 20th
Chet: Chet will add it to the TAB JIRA
Chet: No public reviews in the works right now
Chet: 5 - open action items
Chet: Chet - contact Carol Geyer about adding citation lists to Policies & Guidelines page.
Chet: still open
Chet: 6 - Start discussing how to investigate 'Develop proposals for improving the feedback from public reviews'
Chet: Patrick joins
Chet: Ashok: OASIS wants to develop standards that are accepted by overall IT industry. However, the action tends to be dominated by a few big companies. Question is: are we actually creating standards that are widely applicable / accepted / implemented? What can we do to attract other guys?
Chet: Patrick: that is the rhetoric - but in practice a small group of vendors who want a standard that they can control tend to drive the development
Chet: P: not sure they care about broad adoption. e.g. cloud TCs - how can you have a TC on cloud without Amazon? why form a TC that isn't representative of the broad community.
Chet: Chet: the pattern I see across TCs is a small core group doing the work and voting, larger group of members who watch
Chet: J: yes, standards usually driven by a small group with skin in the game. But still that larger group of followers who want to see something developed
Chet: J: any standard is better than no standard
Chet: J: Amazon not being in the effort could be an example of the benefit of a standards effort - to prevent one vendor from owning the market
Chet: J: standards effort gives more leverage to the other players
Chet: Chet: am I asking the wrong question? Is it not PR feedback but rather something that could encourage more engagement?
Chet: A: perhaps we need a bigger requirement on broad participation in order to start a TC. Example of working group that didn't start because key players wouldn't join.
Chet: A: so more ensuring representative participation
Chet: P: few people other than the editors read the spec. Even the W3C has little feedback on its specs
Chet: P: adequate internal review as far as a quality matter is probably as much as needed
Chet: P: consider OData TC - they've done incredible work yet didn't get many comments
Chet: Get a great standard by having good editors
Chet: A: maybe it is a matter of people not knowing the standard is out for comment
Chet: A: how can we get more broad news out
Chet: J: we've all been here a long time - TCs would like TAB comments earlier than PR time. Not optimistic that we can improve the comments. Could ask TC to provide notifications - you already have that on the form - could encourage more of that
Chet: J: can we require TCs give us recommended reviewers?
Chet: C: should we rethink public reviews entirely? maybe make them optional? or put a spec into permanent public review much like open src projects are
Chet: P: many TCs count on the public review as a milestone in their work flow - and really 30 days is too short for meaningful review
Chet: P: so comment is always open on a draft until the TC is ready for a release at which point it is under a feature freeze - that is, they reach a feature freeze point. Notice goes out on the work at that point for review
Chet: P: not substantively different from current process
Chet: P: it is a different perspective / orientation - this is not something we are escaping but rather a desirable part of the overall evolution
Chet: P: it is as much changing the culture - might get a different result
Chet: J: might be a twist - typical scenario - first public review - comments come in and require material change - TC is frustrated because they know that they have to wait to update til the PR is finished and then they will have to do a round 2
Chet: J: if instead the TC could quickly post fixes in response to comments so that the process of review was more interactive and real time...
Patrick: that's a great idea Jacques!
Chet: J: that way the updated spec could be turned around in a faster time frame
Chet: Chet: what if we had an open source development model for specifications - live for feedback all the time
Chet: P: W3C makes it work
Chet: J: W3C moving towards managing their specs on github
Chet: J: TC today is pushed to declare all changes / comments non-material so that they can 'escape' another round of PR
Chet: C: so an open source model could actually address some of the road blocks
Chet: 7 - work items for next year
Chet: we'll send feedback over the next couple of weeks
Chet: AI - chet write up a summary on the PR thoughts and share before the next meeting
Chet: 8 -AOB? None
Chet: Next meeting May 6th. Until then...
Sent transcript to: chet.ensign@oasis-open.org
Sent transcript to: chet.ensign@comcast.net

20160422 (last edited 2016-05-03 16:26:47 by chet.ensign)