Subject: Draft minutes TAB meeting 02 December 2016

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

Minutes TAB call (December 02, 2016)

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

Info

Time: 2pmET

Dial:

Host confcall: OASIS

US Toll Free: +1 641 715-3822

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

Action items assigned in meeting

- AI: Patrick - update and share baseball example.

- AI: Ashok - incorporate the base ball example, make final edits, and then send around for a final review.

Agenda

1) Roll call

2) Approval of agenda

3) Approval of minutes November 18th:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201611/msg00055.html

4) Status of public reviews

- 6 COEL (Classification of Everyday Living) Committee Specifications - closes 12/9.

5) Status of open action items

- AI: Patrick - merge proposed Conformance Clause edits with current working draft & send to Ashok

- AI:Jacques - Make an editorial pass to the proposal to work in some of the results of our discussions.

- AI: Chet - Draft a cover memo to the Process Committee to accompany the draft.

6) Reivew / approve revised Conformance Clause document

7) Discuss nimble review draft and decide on next steps

8) AOB

Minutes

1) Roll call

Attending: Ashok, Chet, Kevin, Jacques, Patrick, robin

2) Approval of agenda

No discussion of agenda. No objections to unanimous approval. Agenda as amended approved.

3) Approval of minutes of November 18th 2016:

https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201611/msg00055.html

No discussion of minutes. No objections to unanimous approval. Agenda as amended approved.

4) Status of public reviews

- 6 COEL (Classification of Everyday Living) Committee Specifications - closes 12/9. Note: I created 1 Version for all 6 spec drafts in TAB's JIRA.

5) Status of open action items

- AI: Patrick - merge proposed Conformance Clause edits with current working draft & send to Ashok
Completed. Patrick will do final clean-up and send to TAB mailing list. Closed.

- AI:Jacques - Make an editorial pass to the proposal to work in some of the results of our discussions.
Completed. Jacques sent to list. Closed.

- AI: Chet - Draft a cover memo to the Process Committee to accompany the draft.
Completed. Chet drafted cover memo and sent with proposal to Process Committee as an advanced peek. Closed.

6) Review / approve revised Conformance Clause document

Discussed Patrick's draft base ball diamond example. Patrick notes that it is a simple case that almost everyone can relate to. Meant it to be stand-alone but could be part of the document. Discussed merging it into the examples section of the document.

Patrick will make some finishing touches to the baseball example. Patrick and Ashok agreed that otherwise the document just needs for final cleanup. Ashok will merge the example into the document and prepare it for another round of review. . Then we should follow up with another review of the document.

7) Discuss nimble review draft and decide on next steps

Chet shared a workflow that he drafted to see how this could work in practice. The ending conditions seemed hardest to sort out.

Jacque suggests a web page that could publicize the status of the drafts during the review would be a good tool to have with links to the interim review drafts and the ongoing comment log.

Consensus that a cutoff date - proposed as 45 days - is needed as a safeguard for the TC to protect against situations where players may want to delay the completion of the review.

Patrick: noted that there may be a better way if what we are trying to make is a simpler, lighter process. Proposed the idea that the review could be open to review while it is being authored. The ongoing comment disposition log is the last section of the draft and the TC continues to iterate over the working draft as it evolves.

Then what we call the first public review now can be positioned as the TC's final call for comment.

Robin notes that the TC Process doesn't prohibit this entirely now. A TC can keep working on their draft while the review is underway. The one thing this would change is that the final interim draft could be approved without having to undergo another round of review.

Robin pointed out that when TCs were left to publish their own content, we had continual problems. That could be a problem for a TC if we don't start them from a staff-prepared version, e.g. csprd01.

Robin also noted that Kavi doesn't work on HTML content making it difficult to publish many of our specs natively from the Kavi platform. Have to load a zip file and ask reviewers to download.

Discussed getting TCs to do better at reaching out to invited experts to join the review.

Discussion about whether this would also apply to the 60-day review period for Candidate OASIS Standards. Agreed that is a different matter.

Agreed that the next step will be to continue discussion via email between now and the next meeting.

Next meeting is on Friday, 16 December 2016 at 2:00 PM EST.

Minutes respectfully submitted 06 December 2016 by Chet Ensign.

Chat log

Chet: Proposed Revised Agenda

1) Roll call

2) Approval of agenda

3) Approval of minutes November 18th:
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201611/msg00055.html

4) Status of public reviews
- 6 COEL (Classification of Everyday Living) Committee Specifications - closes 12/9.

5) Status of open action items

- AI: Patrick - merge proposed Conformance Clause edits with current working draft & send to Ashok

- AI:Jacques - Make an editorial pass to the proposal to work in some of the results of our discussions.

- AI: Chet - Draft a cover memo to the Process Committee to accompany the draft.

6) Reivew / approve revised Conformance Clause document

7) Discuss nimble review draft and decide on next steps

Chet: Patrick's latest conformance clause draft attached to: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201612/msg00002.html
Chet: Jacques' latest nimble review draft attached to: https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tab/201612/msg00001.html
Chet: Attending: Ashok, Jacques, Kevin, Patrick, Robin
Chet: Agenda as above is approved.
Chet: Kevin thanks the team for the comments on the WSBD draft.
Chet: Minutes. No discusssion. No objs. Minutes approved.
Chet: Public reviews. COEL closes 12/9.
Chet: Patrick - 800 pages ? No - these are sane.
Chet: Action items
Chet: - AI: Patrick - merge proposed Conformance Clause edits with current working draft & send to Ashok
Chet: Closed.

anonymous morphed into robin

Chet: - AI:Jacques - Make an editorial pass to the proposal to work in some of the results of our discussions.
Chet: Closed
Chet: v
Chet: AI: Chet - Draft a cover memo to the Process Committee to accompany the draft.
Chet: Closed
Chet: 6) Reivew / approve revised Conformance Clause document
Chet: Question - what use for the base ball example?
Chet: Patrick: Meant it as a standalone but it could go in as an example in that section of the document.
Chet: Could be a very simple example that everyone can relate to. So yes - that might be a good idea.
Chet: Could also be a stand alone illustration that could be handed over to people who want to know.
Chet: A: does need a little work - i.e. it needs a conformance target. P: agreed. just don't want it to get beyond 3 pages.
Chet: A: P update the example and then A will merge into the document.
Chet: AI to Patrick - push out an upated baseball example.
Chet: Patrick: we should merge the baseball example and Ashok merges into the document. Then we should follow up with another review of the document.
Chet: Ashok: I assume you're ok with everything as it is - didn't see any comments or notes. P: yes although that may be changed by one more read.
Chet: AI: Ashok to incorporate the base ball example and then send around for a final review.
Chet: 7) Discuss nimble review draft and decide on next steps
Chet: Chet: was the red text what you updated from previous version? J: yes. verison 4 was what you handed to the process committee. this is version 5.
Chet: 1. The TC releases csprd01 and announces the public review. The review is described as a minimum duration of 30 days that can be extended to a maximum if comments continue to come in.

2. The TC receives comments over the course of the 30 days. The editors address comments and release interim public review drafts, e.g csprd01.1, csprd01.2.

Changes may *only* address comments. New material cannot be added to the draft. If no comments are received, either from the public or from TC members, the draft cannot be changed.

Interim drafts are released at the discretion of the editors. The interim drafts will not be mass-mailed to all OASIS members but must be announced to the TC's mailing list, comment list, all who have provided comments and to the TC's public web page.

Interim drafts must be red-lined with changes from the previous draft and must be accompanied by a comment resolution log tracking all comments and actions taken from the beginning of the review.

Interim drafts will be loaded to the TC's document repository in Kavi. TC Amin will post a one page metadata document to the public review directory on the OASIS library (thus minimizing staff administrative overhead required).

3. If the TC posts an interim draft and 7 days pass without additional comments and the 30 day review period is reached or exceeded, the TC may declare the review closed.

If the 30 day review period is reached and comments continue to come in, the TC will continue to work on addressing those comments. The TC may continue working this way as long as it wishes to. However, if the TC chooses (for example, because the TC believes that comments are becoming obstructive), the TC may post what it considers the final public review draft on day 45 along with a 7 day final call for comments. Regardless of whether comments are received during this window or not, after the 7 day period, the TC may declare the public review over.

If comments come in after the close, the TC can handle them as they choose, including declining to consider them.

4. Once the public review is closed, the TC shall vote to approve the final interim draft as the final public review draft. It will submit that draft along with the final comment resolution log to TC Admin for publication on the OASIS library. (E.g. csprd01.4) The TC may then proceed with moving to the next stage, e.g. approving the Committee Specification.

Chet: Chet: runs over the workflow as I see it working.
Chet: J: to keep people aware of the interim draft - no mass mailing - but a web page that gives you the status of the public review, links to the interim drafts, links to the comments or the ongoing comment log -
Chet: J: regarding the closing - the 45 days is a safeguard for the TC to be able to refuse new comments if need be - in other words, it is a limit that the TC can extend if they want to / as long as they need to.
Chet: J: a safeguard bcz some party may want to delay release of a spec.
Chet: Patrick: what strikes me is that if we are really trying to make a simpler, lighter process, maybe there is a better way.
Chet: P: we keep talking about having this window for public comment - what if editors issue a working draft for comment - have a comment disposition log as the last section of the draft - and the TC can continue to iterate over the working draft
Chet: P: *then* the TC can issue a 30 day last call for comment -
Chet: P: that way you don't have this magic comment period - it is more a matter of the TC's ability to move the work
Chet: P: having an ongoing public review during the drafting of the working draft - the 30 day final call would be comparable to our first PR today
Chet: Robin: concerned about how much detail was in the calendar - agree with Patrick's suggestion that this could be described in a coupe of paragraphs
Chet: R: other concern - we did have a time when TCs did a lot more of their own publishing - the TCs would get stuff is wrong. Chet: clarify - the csprd01 would be published by TCADMIN by today - the interims would be based on that
Chet: R: the other thing that didn't work very well is that when you get complex specifications that require links, those would often be broken when packaged in Kavi.
Chet: R: because Kavi can't handle HTML - they'd likely only be partly functional.
Chet: R: that said, I *do* like the idea. Other groups are doing that in github.
Chet: J: starting w/ Patrick's point - that the closing date might not be needed - it is up to the TC to decide when to close the PR - maybe we don't need that safeguard as the TC could always decide to stop taking comments
Chet: J: so we could get rid of that maximum safeguard.
Chet: J: the proposal can really be boiled down do sect 3.2.1 - the rest is just descriptive narrative content on why this is useful etc.
Chet: J: re R - the initial CSPRD is the one that TC Admin manages but TCA should not need to scrutinize the point releases

Patrick: Jacques - my suggestion is to not have a fixed review period but a rolling public review from the first draft until the TC issues a Last Call (30) days for comments, plus comment resolution log at the end of the drafts, incremented as comments are resolved. (Need to change the terminology, there are working drafts and then the final call draft, next step - CS, etc.

Chet: J: regarding the approvals, the editors have a lot of power here - the TC members can object to a solution proposed by filing a comment
Chet: Ashok: one thing we haven't talked about which is to have designated reviewers - people in the TC or experts that you explicitly invite to do the review. Maybe the TC invites area experts individually to review the work.
Chet: Kevin: first - going back to Jacques suggestion on not having a fixed PR in the beginning - but having a final call -- but how is the announcement handled ? That might put a burden on TC Admin.
Chet: K: second - currently 2 PR periods - would this be for both or just prior to CS?
Chet: P: not sure the 60 day pr fits thought this
Chet: K: it was in our 60 day PR, that was when we got feedback during that PR. It definitely gets visibility.
Chet: C: the 60 day PR is tied to our liaison standing with other orgs
Chet: P: what can you do with comments received during the 60 day PR.
Chet: K: in our case, we just passed them on to the appropriate committee
Chet: J: on Ashok's point - idea of committed reviewers - they should be able to provide a list of reviewers.
Chet: J: and this way, there should be an incentive because they are going to get response immediately
Chet: J: this will give the TCs incentive to find them
Chet: Chet: the form has the space for those reviewers - maybe I need to rename it

robin: Thanks all, for good design suggestions on reviews... good progress

20161202 (last edited 2016-12-06 21:43:09 by chet.ensign)