Is any of the work in the OCA ready yet to progress for any sort of approval yet? If I understand correctly, we have no approved OCA work products ie releases (like TC WD), project specifications (like TC CSC), or OASIS Standards (same as TC standard just approved by PGB instead of a TC). I just sent an email to PACE list about work products I think PACE should be producing. Are either stixshifter or kestrel at a point where they should be considering PGB approving a release? Note approving stuff might rate OASIS news release and might spur some interest both in participating and in using the open source.

The TSC would need to guide that question.

• I do not know what the gate criteria would be to tag a 1.0 release in any of the core projects, it would be a TSC question.
• In theory the Kestrel language could eventually be a standard but I know there are some changes coming. Again the TSC should guide when they think it is stable enough to start that journey.

Is any of the work in the OCA ready yet to progress for any sort of approval yet? If I understand correctly, we have no approved OCA work products ie releases (like TC WD), project specifications (like TC CSC), or OASIS Standards (same as TC standard just approved by PGB instead of a TC). I just sent an email to PACE list about work products I think PACE should be producing. Are either stixshifter or kestrel at a point where they should be considering PGB approving a release? Note approving stuff might rate OASIS news release and might spur some interest both in participating and in using the open source.

Jason (and I cc’d TSC as well original PGB).

Agree it’s the TSC that brings to PGB for approval after a project brings it to TSC. I’m just prompting people should look at this (ie not forget our purpose is to create work products) which might help get others involved, or at least aware of our projects and start using them.

Wrt your gate criteria for a release: At the far end of the scale (standard), the bar should probably be fairly high, but I’d suggest for the near end (release) the bar be fairly low (ie approve incrementally more often). And I think getting to a ‘first release’ (presume it would be called 1.0.0) would be good even if it’s “incomplete”. And then PGB approving “dot releases” (e.g. 1.1) that add features would be more often (monthly probably too many, but somewhere in quarterly to annually) would be good. And obviously breaking changes (eg 2.0.0) should be approved as soon as agreed to. If we’d have a lot of breaking changes, then I agree it would be better to wait until stable.

TSC:

See thread below. Your thoughts of releases (lowest level of approval for open projects, followed by draft project specification, project specification, and OASIS standard). I’m not proposing people jump right to standard but I am suggesting we should consider putting out releases on our subprojects (or at least plan when we might do so).

The TSC would need to guide that question.

• I do not know what the gate criteria would be to tag a 1.0 release in any of the core projects, it would be a TSC question.
• In theory the Kestrel language could eventually be a standard but I know there are some changes coming. Again the TSC should guide when they think it is stable enough to start that journey.

Is any of the work in the OCA ready yet to progress for any sort of approval yet? If I understand correctly, we have no approved OCA work products ie releases (like TC WD), project specifications (like TC CSC), or OASIS Standards (same as TC standard just approved by PGB instead of a TC). I just sent an email to PACE list about work products I think PACE should be producing. Are either stixshifter or kestrel at a point where they should be considering PGB approving a release? Note approving stuff might rate OASIS news release and might spur some interest both in participating and in using the open source.