[KI-LC] "Reports" produced by WGs and DGs

Joni Brennan joni at ieee-isto.org
Tue Oct 26 11:19:34 EDT 2010


+1 to these responses.  It seems to make good sense that an Operating
Procedures (OP) would help to explain the context.  I have another OP
related item I'd like to add under AoB on next LC call.  Perhaps we'd try to
tackle a few OP updates all at once through LC and then All Members.

thx

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Bradley <jbradley at mac.com> wrote:

> We should also clarify the operating rules that say that a report isn't
> Kantara branded while at the same time having the report template contain
> the Kantara logo.
>
> I suspect the correct answer is that they are marked draft repots until the
> LC votes on them, to assure the process has been followed by the WG than
> they can be circulated as a Final WG report with the Kantara logo (perhaps
> with a disclaimer explaining that a report has not been voted on by the
> Kantara membership)
>
> The other reason for bringing them to the LC is that it gives them a cross
> WG visibility that they would not have if they remained inside the WG.
>
> John B.
> On 2010-10-26, at 4:24 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
>
> >
> > Eve -
> >
> > Bob's got it right... the LC provides a "sanity check" on the report
> > (e.g. that they've followed the rules), and is not intended (and hasn't
> > been historically applied) as an evaluation of the reported work itself.
> >
> > IMO, a vote by the LC is a necessary step in letting the world know that
> > the report was created according to our accepted process.
> >
> > Perhaps it'd make sense to update the OP accordingly.
> >
> > YMMV,
> > Trent
> >
> >
> > Bob Pinheiro wrote:
> >> Having just gone through this exercise with the CIWG Interim Report, I
> >> too was a bit puzzled by the need to have the LC vote on the report.
> >> Since the WG Report, once approved by both the WG and the LC, does not
> >> represent an official Kantara position, I can only surmise that the
> >> intent of the LC approval process is to act as a kind of final sanity
> >> check before the report is published as a "Kantara Initiative WG
> >> Report."  In practice, however, it can't be assumed that LC members will
> >> have necessarily reviewed a report before voting on it.  With that in
> >> mind, it's not clear to me that a LC vote should be required, unless
> >> someone else can provide a rationale.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >> On 10/25/2010 4:55 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks-- I'm sending this as both a WG chair who is curious how this
> issue might apply to the UMA group, and as a member of the Info Sharing
> group where this issue just came up today.
> >>>
> >>> The Operating Procedures seem to have a peculiarly shaped "hole" in
> them, and I don't see a Process Guidelines writeup on the LC wiki that
> covers this either.  (Please forgive me if work in this area has been done;
> it's slipped my mind...)
> >>>
> >>> In summary, the hole is that WG Reports are clearly produced solely by
> those WGs, but there is a hint that such Reports are intended to be
> submitted to LCs, for the purpose of approval.  What we don't know is, to
> what end exactly? -- for submission to an All-Member Ballot eventually, or
> for a pat on the back, or what?  And is submission->approval->(something)
> the expected path, an optional path, a 100% required path, or what?
> >>>
> >>> Here is the blow-by-blow of all relevant mentions of "Reports" in the
> OPs:
> >>>
> >>> ====
> >>>
> >>> The OPs define a Report as:
> >>>
> >>> "“Report” shall mean any Work Group or Discussion Group output that is
> not a Technical Specification that is approved by a Majority of the Group
> and submitted to the Leadership Council. A Report is not a branded product
> of the Organization (i.e. it is not submitted for an All Member Ballot)."
> [Sec 1, defn 1.7]
> >>>
> >>> ====
> >>>
> >>> It is suggested that a legitimate LC activity is to approve WG/DG
> Reports, as related in the section on LC voting, though it doesn't seem
> required and there is no purpose stated for doing this:
> >>>
> >>> "The following actions require a Simple Majority of those voting:
> >>>   Approval of the formation of a Work Group;
> >>>   Dissolution of a Work Group or a Discussion Group;
> >>>   Certification of a Draft Recommendation as ready for All Member
> Ballot;
> >>>   Approval of Work Group and Discussion Group Reports; and
> >>>   All actions not specifically identified elsewhere in these
> procedures" [Sec 2.6]
> >>>
> >>> ====
> >>>
> >>> It's quite clear that WG/DG Reports aren't official Kantara outputs.
>  For example:
> >>>
> >>> "The WG shall elect from its Participants one or more Editors to
> produce draft Technical Specifications, other Draft Recommendations, and/or
> Reports." [Sec 3 intro]
> >>>
> >>> and (note that submission hint again):
> >>>
> >>> "In addition to development of the Draft Recommendation(s) authorized
> in the Work Group Charter the WG may find it appropriate to develop
> additional Reports. These Reports shall meet any requirements established by
> the LC.
> >>> Submission of a report to the LC requires a Simple Majority approval of
> the WG." [Sec 3.9]
> >>>
> >>> and:
> >>>
> >>> "WG and DG Reports are not directly Organization branded and do not
> imply any position by the Organization Membership. Reports are titled:
> >>> “Kantara Initiative {Work/Discussion} Group XYZ {Final/Interim}
> Report”." [Sec 7.5]
> >>>
> >>> ====
> >>>
> >>> So, can the LC clarify what the expectations are?  Is this a good thing
> to make a Process Guideline or some other explanatory memo about, once we
> figure it out?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>>     Eve (for Joe and the rest of the InfoSharing gang)
> >>>
> >>> Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> >>> +1 425 345 6756                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LC mailing list
> >>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LC mailing list
> >> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> >> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
> >>
> >
> > --
> > J. Trent Adams
> > =jtrentadams
> >
> > Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
> > Internet Society
> > http://www.isoc.org
> >
> > e) adams at isoc.org
> > o) +1-703-439-2149
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LC mailing list
> > LC at kantarainitiative.org
> > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>
>


-- 
Joni Brennan
IEEE-ISTO
Kantara Initiative | Managing Director
voice:+1 732-226-4223
email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
gtalk: jonibrennan
skype: upon request

Join the conversation on the community@ list -
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20101026/6c78b263/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the LC mailing list