[KI-LC] Additional proposed revision to the OP

Heather Flanagan heather at kantarainitiative.org
Fri Sep 21 10:47:34 EDT 2012


Thanks, Colin.

One argument for the restriction is to keep the WG focused on producing
what they stated they'd produce.  I think it is possible for a WG to
state intheir charter that they may create related Recommendations and
Reports, but outside that, I would think it is a scope creep problem.

-Heather

On 9/21/12 7:39 AM, Colin Soutar wrote:
>
> Hi Heather –
>
>  
>
> I have a couple of editorial suggestions marked below in red, and one
> philosophical question…
>
>  
>
> Why should the WG’s be restricted in developing Draft Recommendations
> that are recited in their WG Charter?   The way the first sentence
> reads, they can only do work that is contemplated at the time of
> Charter approval.  Given the various steps required to have final
> approval of a Recommendation, I don’t see any harm in the WG’s
> developing Draft Recommendations as they see fit over the WG lifetime.
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
>  
>
> Colin
>
>  
>
> Colin Soutar, Ph.D.
> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=12093891&trk=tab_pro&_mSplash=1>
>
> email at colinsoutar.com <mailto:email at colinsoutar.com>
>
> 416 358 1431
>
>  
>
> *From:*lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org
> [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Flanagan
> *Sent:* September-20-12 4:04 PM
> *To:* LC at kantarainitiative.org
> *Subject:* [KI-LC] Additional proposed revision to the OP
>
>  
>
> Hi all -
>
> A question came up recently regarding the procedures for handling a
> Draft Report from the WG.  The current OP is not very clear on the
> subject (though it is reasonably clear on the handling of Draft
> Recommendations).  While there is some additional guidance on the wiki
> (http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/LC+Approval+of+Group+Reports)
> , voted on in 2011 by the LC, that text conflicts with the OP in new
> and confusing ways.  In particular, it talks about sending a Report
> out for an All-Member Ballot, which doesn't happen with Reports.
>
> So, I am proposing to change the text in the OP.
>
> Current text:
>
> *3.9**      Development of WG Reports*
> 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.
>
>
>
> Proposed text:
>
> 1.             *Development of WG Reports*
> 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, specifically:
>
> * *
>
> 3        The Draft Report must be duly approved by a simple majority
> of the voting participants of the WG.
>
> 4        The Draft Report must meet basic document quality
> requirements for spelling, formatting, etc., and uses an approved
> Kantara Report template
> <http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/GI/Publishing+Templates>where
> possible.
>
> 5        The LC will work with the group to address any
> _additional_document quality or formatting issues and will vote to
> accept the Draft Report as a final Kantara Initiative Report. (see
> Section 2.6 Voting).
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -- 
> Heather Flanagan
> Technical Program Coordinator
> Kantara Initiative
> Skype: hlflanagan
> email: heather at kantarainitiative.org <mailto:heather at kantarainitiative.org>


-- 
Heather Flanagan
Technical Program Coordinator
Kantara Initiative
Skype: hlflanagan
email: heather at kantarainitiative.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20120921/34332a4b/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the LC mailing list