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

Colin Wallis colin_wallis at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 31 17:08:35 EDT 2010

I support this positioning.

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:54:38 -0700
From: joe at andrieu.net
To: jbradley at mac.com
CC: lc at kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] "Reports" produced by WGs and DGs



That's actually quite reasonable. Sending a report to the LC so that
other leadership can be apprised of the work is a fine idea.

Requiring that the LC review the work and approve it in some manner
suggests that work might well fail to get approval and would, in fact,
be blocked by the LC. From what I can gather, that's the assumption
underlying many of the comments on the topic. And it is that delay,
cost, and uncertainty that doesn't make sense to me.

Your suggestion is actually in keeping with the current OP, so we'd
just need to clarify to the community that the purpose of LC review is
not for "approval" but for notice, and that neither a vote nor quorum
is necessary for the Work Group to go ahead and publish the report.  In
fact, that'd be the easiest solution procedurally since it wouldn't
entail any changes to the OP at all.

Let's definitely discuss at IIW. 


Joe Andrieu
joe at andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651

On 10/30/2010 9:02 AM, John Bradley wrote:
I see.

  I don't think the intention ever was to have the LC block
reports from WG.

  However I do think it is a good idea for the chairs of the other
WG to have visibility into WG reports.

  Perhaps the OP need to allow for a WG to finalize a WG report,
 but still keep step of having the LC receive the final report.

  That allows the LC to know what WG are active and promotes cross
WG communication without blocking publishing a report.

  I don't think we can solve it before IIW,  however Eve and Joni
and myself along with others will be their if we want to discuss it
next week.

  John B.

  On 2010-10-30, at 4:10 AM, Joe Andrieu wrote:


Trent is pretty active in our group, so we conferred with him on the
timing we'd need to get it approved by IIW. We had some commenters we
were holding the door open for, so we knew we'd have a minimal amount
of time to turn it around. Given the additional problems with the line
numbers in the PDF, the window for the LC to actually review it was
unfortunately even shorter than we'd hoped for. But that's sort of the
point, here... why do we need the review at all?


We've missed the window for IIW. And because of the ambiguity in the OP
the reports are now in an odd limbo. They aren't "final" but they are
also not drafts. They have been approved by the working group and
submitted, and the OP indicates that makes them non-draft reports. The
publishing templates follow the same distinction as the OP. The "draft"
templates state unambiguously that the report has not been approved by
the Work Group. After discussing this with Eve last Monday, we agreed
the OP clearly allowed for the documents to be "Work Group Reports" but
that they couldn't be "Kantara Reports" without LC approval. That's
almost certainly not what anyone intended, but it was the best we could
determine from the current language.


So, not only do we have, IMO, an unnecessary requirement for LC
approval, but that approval process is ambiguously defined and of
uncertain delay and complication.


But I didn't raise the pain point of these two reports in order to
resolve the problems with these reports.  


I raised the pain point because it is a concrete example of the costs
incurred by the current review process by its very existence.


I'd like to know what people think we're getting in return for this


It seems we are accepting a burden of pre-emptive policing for a
problem we don't have.




    Joe Andrieu
joe at andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651

On 10/29/2010 4:39 PM, John Bradley wrote:
    Joe ,

      I don't know what discussions were had with Trent,  but the
reports were submitted to the LC hours before the call on Wednesday.
      It is unfortunate that we didn't have the quorum to pass
 I don't recall anyone from the WG on the call asking for them to be

      I understand IIW is important and would support having a
electronic ballot to approve them.

      In the interim there is nothing to prevent you from
and discussing them as draft reports. 

      I agree we need to look at the operating procedures for
 However we should try and address your immediate problem first.

      I think the fastest way to do that is to hold a electronic
ballot before the next LC call.

      John B.

      On 2010-10-29, at 7:59 PM, Joe Andrieu wrote:
        I've yet to see an
as to why it is more economic to require
approval for every report verses correcting errors after the fact.


A required review process is a burden both to the work group and to the
LC for every single report, potentially every time it goes through a
significant revision. A corrective regime, however, would only incur a
cost when there's a bad report published.


Do we really anticipate such a large number of inappropriate reports
that it justifies a top-down approval process for everything?  


Consider that any report worthy of the name is from a duly chartered
work group, with duly elected leadership, after a vote at a duly held
meeting, and publishing those reports on the Kantara website, which is
entirely under staff control.


I doubt the costs of correction is any higher than the costs of review
on a per-report basis. And yet, we have placed that burden on every
single report rather than minimizing our overhead and paying the price
of oversight only when there is a problem.


The ISWG is now heading into IIW without the two reports we had
anticipating publishing at the workshop, entirely due to the inherent
costs of the LC review process, even though we had worked directly with
Trent as LC Chairman to assure a smooth approval. If it weren't for
that overhead, we could actually leverage our Kantara work to engage a
broader conversation with the very audience we wrote it for. Instead,
by the time this particular community comes together again next May,
the conversation will likely have moved on, both in the community at
large, and within our own work group. And we're stuck with that
because, in essence, we have to ask the LC for permission to publish
our work.


I'll go further than Bob and suggest that the entire idea of requiring
approval is not just an unnecessary waste of time and effort, it is an
affront to the character of the leadership of our work groups.


Could someone outline the argument in favor of required approvals?




        Joe Andrieu
joe at andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651

On 10/29/2010 8:35 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
          All -

I believe it will help to clarify the goals to ensure we're not just
making up rules for fun.  Specifically in this case, I see the goals of
LC-level oversight of WG/DG Reports being:

 1. The Report adheres to the Group's charter.

 2. The rules for producing the Report were
     followed by the Group.

 3. The appropriate steps will be taken when
     publishing the Report (i.e. the logo and
     marks are used correctly).

As I think we all agree, I don't believe a goal of the oversight it so
vet the content of the Report.

I do see that the LC Secretary could perform the evaluation of 2 and 3
as they're largely mechanical.  I do believe, however, that the
Secretary shouldn't be the sole evaluator of 1; that seems to be a more
subjective evaluation left up to the full LC.

Finally, addressing an earlier point... I personally don't think it's a
great idea to start layering in a taxonomy of different Report types. 
>From my read of the OP, a Report is simply our term meaning official
output of a Group (that can take any form).  I can see a never-ending
discussion about whether this Report or that Report are of this Type,
that Type, or should be a new Type.


Bob Pinheiro wrote:
            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

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.


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.


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...


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


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.


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...).


    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.


        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. 


            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

                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
                > 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
                >>> Thanks,
                >>>     Eve (for Joe and the rest of the InfoSharing
                >>> Eve Maler                                
                >>> +1 425 345 6756                      
                >>> _______________________________________________
                >>> 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>

            Joni Brennan
            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 - 

            LC mailing list
            LC at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>

        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>

    Eve Maler                                
    +1 425 345 6756                      

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_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
              Eve Maler                                  http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
+1 425 345 6756                         http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl

LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org

LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org

LC mailing list

        LC at kantarainitiative.org





LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20101101/c68c9626/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the LC mailing list