[KI-LC] Cheat sheet for Recommendation process
eve at xmlgrrl.com
Wed Mar 9 22:42:46 CST 2016
I believe the key sentences in the Operating Procedures are:
- "A Simple Majority of those Voting [in a WG] is required to approve
the submission of a Draft Recommendation to the LC for All Member Ballot."
- "When a Draft Recommendation is completed by a Work Group, it is
submitted to the Leadership Council for an All Member Ballot. It is the
LC’s responsibility to certify that the WG draft is within the scope of the
WG charter; meets the Draft Recommendation document requirements; and is
ready for an All Member Ballot. This is a two-step process. Step 1- The
Technical Specification or other Draft Recommendation first must be made
available for public review and comment for a period of at least 45 days.
This review period is required to give sufficient time for Members to
conduct internal legal and technical reviews of the Draft Recommendation.
All comments received during the review shall be reported to both the LC
and the WG that authored the Draft Recommendation. Step 2 – Upon completion
of the 45-day public review period, a Simple Majority of those Voting of
the LC is required to certify the Draft Recommendation ready for All Member
Ballot. The LC Secretary shall then initiate the All Member Ballot. This
ballot shall be conducted electronically and shall be open for a minimum of
There has been some confusion, I believe, around interpretation of how
Public Review has been handled. Does the LC approve the Draft
Recommendation to enable Public Review to go forward (which is how I seem
to recall we did it for the UMA specs), or does the LC approve the Draft
Recommendation only after Public Review is completed? The former seems more
appropriate, given that you wouldn't want a WG-self-approved draft going
out to the entire membership without the LC looking it over. But maybe we
can look at past LC motions and see if I'm wrong.
Assuming my interpretation and recollection are correct, following are the
required steps and parties:
1. *WG:* Conduct a vote to approve the submission of a technical
specification as a "candidate Draft Recommendation" to the LC for approval.
2. *LC:* Conduct a vote to certify that the candidate Draft
Recommendation is within the scope of the WG charter; meets the Draft
Recommendation document requirements; and is ready for *Public Review*
[[not All Member Ballot quite yet]].
3. *WG and staff:* Prepare specification as "Draft Recommendation" for
Public Review and publish, in coordination with the LC secretary. (In the
past I have worked solely with staff on this, with no particular role for
the LC secretary, I must admit.)
4. *WG:* Publish response to any comments at conclusion of Public Review
5. *LC secretary:* Launch All Member Ballot. (Or should they have two
votes??) (In the past ... ditto.)
6. *WG:* (Not required but we always do this!) Launch "get out the vote"
effort with Kantara membership.
I feel like there's some more debugging that still needs to be done around
the process -- the OPs have more ambiguity hidden in there...
The UMA WG has come up with canonical wording for the Status of This
Document blurb on the first page of the spec when it comes to "draft
technical specification" to "candidate Draft Recommendation" to "Draft
Recommendation" to "Recommendation" stage changes. I'd have to dig that up.
*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC