[KI-LC] Types of Group Output

Paul Madsen paulmadsen at rogers.com
Tue Sep 8 07:11:06 PDT 2009


Thanks for the overview Trent.

Other than the voting process & resultant 'branding' implications, is 
there a difference between report & recommendation in the nature of 
their allowed content?

paul

J. Trent Adams wrote:
> All -
>
> It's exciting that so many groups are actively working.  As such, there
> is already interest in the process of moving the final output from the
> groups out into the world.  I've put together a couple notes that should
> help provide some guidance.
>
> The KI rules provide for two output types:
>
>  1. Report
>  2. Recommendation
>
> In short, a Report is a general document that's officially published by
> the WG/DGs, but is not branded as KI output.  Recommendations, on the
> other hand, are documents produced by WGs (not DGs) that can be ratified
> by an all-member ballot as officially branded KI output.  These two
> types provide a lot of flexibility for various opinions to co-exist and
> be heard while protecting the integrity of the voice of the entire
> initiative.
>
> If, for example, your WG would like to publicly comment on a topic you
> could do so by producing a Report or a Recommendation.  The difference
> is that one carries the full weight of the KI membership while the other
> is a statement coming from the WG/DG itself.
>
> The process for a WG/DG producing a Report is simple.  After a Majority
> of the Group votes to approve it, the Report is submitted to the
> Leadership Council, and it is thus recorded as official output of the
> Group.  At that point it can be publicized as the voice of the Group.
>
> The process for a WG producing a Recommendation is a bit more rigorous. 
> It starts the same way as a Report out of the WG with a Majority of the
> Group voting to approve it as a Draft Recommendation.  Once it is
> submitted, the LC will review it to ensure it's within the scope of the
> WG charter.  After the LC approves it by a Simple Majority of those
> voting, it is made available for at least a 45-day review period by the
> full KI Membership.  At the end of the review, the LC Secretary
> initiates an All Member Ballot.  This ballot will be conducted via email
> and will be open for at least 14 days.  The Recommendation will become
> officially branded KI output if a Supermajority of those Voting in the
> All Member Ballot agree.
>
> As you can see, it's a lot easier (and faster) to produce a Report than
> a Recommendation, though it falls short of being able to carry the
> imprimatur of KI.  Also, there is nothing in the rules that indicates a
> Report can't be made into a Recommendation, if that path meets the needs
> of the WG.
>
> Any output that's short of a Report or Recommendation, though, should be
> considered the opinion of the individual person/people and not the WG/DG
> or KI.
>
> For more detailed information, you may went to review the following from
> the Operating Procedure (OP) [1] and the Bylaws [2]:
>
>  * OP 0 "Scope"
>  * OP 2.6 "Voting"
>  * OP 1.4 “Draft Recommendation”
>  * Bylaws 1.15 “Recommendation”
>  * OP 1.7 "Report"
>  * OP 5 "All-Member Ballot of a Draft Recommendation"
>
> I hope this helps, but please feel free to reply to this or contact me
> with any comments, questions, or suggestions.  If it sounds like we may
> need to modify the OP in any way, we should capture the thoughts in the 
> Operating Procedures Review page on the wiki [3].
>
> Cheers,
> Trent
>
>
> [1]
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/2293776/Kantara+Initiative+Operating+Procedures+_V1.0_+2009-04-03.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1245549205000
> [2]
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/2293776/Kantara+Initiative+ByLaws_v1.0_+2009-04-03.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1239840451000
> [3]
> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/Operating+Procedures+Review
>
>   



More information about the LC mailing list