Re: [oslc-op] [OASIS Issue Tracker] (TCADMIN-3919) Publish OSLC Requirements Management Version 2.1 PS01 as a candidate for OASIS Standard
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi guys -
Sorry. Paul is right. I goofed on the ballot but here is an alternative way forward.
I should not have used the link to the email attachment - https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op-pgb/attachment/107/0/rm-2.1-cos01.zip - in the ballot. I *never* should have done that. The version approved as PS01 that is published is the version at http://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/rm/v2.1/ps01/. That is the formally approved spec, published, and, crucially, the one all the Statements of Use cite. Asking for approval to move forward with an email attachment was stupid, stupid, stupid and I'm not sure how sleep-deprived I was when I set it up. But I cannot put that forward as the candidate for OASIS Standard. That is just compounding the error.
I don't see any clean way to go back and redo this. If I set up a ballot to approve that ZIP file as PS02, you'll need to redo everything else. And we don't overwrite specs once published. PS01 has to stand as is.
Here is what I propose: we will go ahead and run the review on teh approved version at http://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/rm/v2.1/ps01/. We will then submit the issues identified in issue #19 as public review feedback. After the public review period has closed, we will kick into the process as described in https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2017-05-26/#OSpublicRev. Basically, I will hold a Special Majority Vote to approve the ZIP file as a new PS for submission to the members in the Call for Consent. Once that passes, we will publish the ZIP as PS02 and make it the candidate for the Call for Consent.
Again, apologies for this snafu. This is the first cOS ballot from Open Projects and I wanted to get it right. At least this way, we can keep it moving forward in line with the process.
If you have questions or you want to consider alternate approaches, let me know so that we can hold off starting the public review.
I'm happy to proceed whichever way you guys want to go.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:48 PM Axel Reichwein <axel.reichwein@...> wrote: