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

Bob Pinheiro kantara at bobpinheiro.com
Fri Oct 29 11:02:19 EDT 2010


Once a WG Report is approved by the WG itself, I believe that the only 
role for the LC at that point is to ensure that proper procedures have 
been followed, and that the correct copyright notice and formatting have 
been applied, etc.  In fact, that seems more like a job for the LC 
secretary, or perhaps even the Kantara staff, rather than the LC 
itself.  So while it's important to ensure that published WG Reports 
conform to these procedural requirements, it's not clear to me that LC 
members themselves are the appropriate people to do this review, or even 
that individual LC members will actually have done this prior to voting.

Once WG Reports receive final approval, in whatever manner that occurs, 
it might be useful for someone (staff?  WG Chair? LC Secretary?) to send 
an email announcement to the LC list and/or the Community list.

I would oppose any effort to have the LC review WG  Reports for content 
and/or conformance to the WG's Charter.  I don't think that's an 
appropriate role for the LC to play, nor do I believe that individual LC 
members will necessarily have the interest or time to do a deep dive 
into other WG's Reports.

Bob

On 10/29/2010 10:27 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
> I don't know if the debate has been fully held, but the suggestion is 
> that LC approval amounts to the kind of checking that the Secretary 
> would do on a proposed charter: does it live up to the rules of format 
> and WG approval set forth by the OPs? (Typing this just now, I realize 
> that sounds kind of circular since we're discussing revising the OPs. 
> :-) An alternate suggestion might be that the LC needs to approve the 
> content in a deeper fashion, perhaps referring back to the group's 
> charter and ensuring that the content is somehow in keeping with the 
> group's overall function. I'm open to that. But a "semantic" role in 
> LC approval doesn't seem to match its usual role in such things.
>
> Eve
>
> On 28 Oct 2010, at 7:42 PM, Colin Wallis wrote:
>
>> Has the debate been had and done on exactly what it is we are trying 
>> to achieve with the LC loop ?
>>
>> Joe and I have been having a somewhat frank exchange of views on this 
>> between us...
>>
>> Cheers
>> Colin
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:03:35 -0400
>> From:stollman.j at gmail.com <mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com>
>> To:eve at xmlgrrl.com <mailto:eve at xmlgrrl.com>
>> CC:joe at andrieu.net <mailto:joe at andrieu.net>;LC at kantarainitiative.org 
>> <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
>> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] "Reports" produced by WGs and DGs
>>
>> 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 
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>                 <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
>>                 >>>http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>>
>>                 >>
>>                 >> _______________________________________________
>>                 >> LC mailing list
>>                 >>LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>                 <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
>>                 >>http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>                 >>
>>                 >
>>                 > --
>>                 > J. Trent Adams
>>                 > =jtrentadams
>>                 >
>>                 > Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
>>                 > Internet Society
>>                 >http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>
>>                 >
>>                 > e)adams at isoc.org <mailto:adams at isoc.org>
>>                 > o) +1-703-439-2149
>>                 >
>>                 >
>>                 > _______________________________________________
>>                 > LC mailing list
>>                 >LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>                 <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
>>                 >http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>>
>>                 _______________________________________________
>>                 LC mailing list
>>                 LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>                 <mailto: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 <http://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 <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
>>             http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         --
>>         Jeff Stollman
>>         stollman.j at gmail.com <mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com>
>>         1 202.683.8699
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         LC mailing list
>>         LC at kantarainitiative.org <mailto: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 <mailto:stollman.j at gmail.com>
>> 1 202.683.8699
>>
>> _______________________________________________ LC mailing 
>> listLC at kantarainitiative.org 
>> <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org <mailto: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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20101029/2efc62bb/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the LC mailing list