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

j stollman stollman.j at gmail.com
Thu Oct 28 22:03:35 EDT 2010


Eve,

If we can find some time next week at IIW, maybe we can work up some new
wording together.  I hope to be around for the Monday UMA session.  Perhaps
we could get together before or after that session.

Jeff

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Eve Maler <eve at xmlgrrl.com> wrote:

> Hi Jeff-- In my roundup of OP wording (doing a lot of searches on the word
> "report" :-), I noticed that the first kind you describe were universally
> spelled lowercase, and the second kind were uppercased and formally defined
> in the front.
>
> The suggestions earlier in the thread seem to suggest that a Report should
> be considered a draft even once voted on by a WG, until the LC has done a
> check and voted it out as having conformed to KI rules. And only then should
> it be considered final. While this is sensible, the wording of the OPs
> doesn't naturally lead one to this conclusion, so we should be aware that
> there may be some confusion until we fix it.
>
> Joni suggested that we actually revise the OPs, if I'm understanding
> correctly. I'm certainly amenable to that. We probably need someone to
> propose wording changes. I could sign up for that, but would need to delay
> by about a month (due to lots and lots of travel...).
>
> Eve
>
> On 26 Oct 2010, at 9:00 AM, j stollman wrote:
>
> Perhaps the issue stems from the vague definition of "Report."  I have
> witnessed at least two types of reports.  There are Reports crafted for
> internal KI purposes (even if they are viewable by the public) and then
> there are Reports that are explicitly targeted at an external audience.  The
> first group of Reports includes annual work-group reports summarizing
> work-group activities.  A second group of Reports are externally targeted
> reports that require approval by vote of the entire Kantara membership.
> There are likely other categories.
>
> It may be appropriate to define these various subsets (or rename some of
> them to avoid confusion) and then clarify procedures for each.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Joni Brennan <joni at ieee-isto.org> wrote:
>
>> +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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Stollman
> stollman.j at gmail.com
> 1 202.683.8699
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>
>
>
> Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> +1 425 345 6756                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>
>


-- 
Jeff Stollman
stollman.j at gmail.com
1 202.683.8699
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20101028/b2b8299f/attachment.html 


More information about the LC mailing list