Re: [oslc-op] [OASIS Issue Tracker] (TCADMIN-3919) Publish OSLC Requirements Management Version 2.1 PS01 as a candidate for OASIS Standard


Chet Ensign
 

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. 

Best, 

/chet

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 4:48 PM Axel Reichwein <axel.reichwein@...> wrote:
Hello Andrew,

I agree with whatever you think is the best. 

Best regards,
Axel

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 1:43 PM Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...> wrote:
Hello Axel, Jim,

The CM COS is proceeding as usual but the RM COS is in a bit of a trouble as Paul is not comfortable with the changes I made to RM PS.

If we want the changes to be applied, we need a new round of SoUs and a PS vote. Otherwise, I think we need to hold a new vote to approve RM PS01 as is to progress to COS. I am most intested in changes 3,4,7. I think Paul will do 1, 2, 5 himself. I think we can convince him to update metadata (8) as well. I don't care much about (6). But I think (3) and (7) are the most important items.


CM COS review will proceed as planned and we can republish RM PS02 and be ready to submit a COS within 3 weeks if I announce intent to publish tomorrow and the new SoUs arrive in parallel during those 3 weeks. In total, it will set us back 6 weeks. KTH will be able to produce SoUs within the next 3 weeks and I think SodiusWillert should be able to as well. If Jim can get SoUs re-approved within 3 weeks from now, there will be no added delay.

Should we do another PS?

--
Cheers,
Andrew

Begin forwarded message:

From: OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@...>
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (TCADMIN-3919) Publish OSLC Requirements Management Version 2.1 PS01 as a candidate for OASIS Standard
Date: 8 March 2021 at 22:32:00 CET


   [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TCADMIN-3919?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=78910#comment-78910 ]

Andrii Berezovskyi commented on TCADMIN-3919:
---------------------------------------------

Can we put this on hold for a bit and proceed with another COS (CM) for now? We will discuss this on the mailing list till the weekly Thursday call, but I don't think we can proceed with this in any case: you will be either publishing the package with changes you don't want to see added between PS and COS or you will be publishing the package that is not the package the PGB has voted on. I think we can redo the SoUs to make sure everything is top notch but I have to ask what Jim and Axel think about this.



Publish OSLC Requirements Management Version 2.1 PS01 as a candidate for OASIS Standard
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               Key: TCADMIN-3919
               URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/TCADMIN-3919
           Project: Technical Committee Administration
        Issue Type: Task
        Components: Document Upload Request
       Environment: OSLC OP
          Reporter: Chet Ensign
          Assignee: Paul Knight
          Priority: Major

Submitted on Friday, March 5, 2021 - 23:27
Submitted by user: censign
Submitted values are:
Your name: Chet Ensign
TC name: OSLC Open Project
TC email address: oslc-op-pgb@...
Title: OSLC Requirements Management Version 2.1 PS01
Approval link:
https://lists.oasis-open-projects.org/g/oslc-op-pgb/topic/approve_submitting_oslc/80909739?p=,,,20,0,0,0::recentpostdate%2Fstick
Original or Amended:  First COS
Previous Candidate OASIS Standard:
Notes: Entered on behalf of the OP after ballot passed. This will be our
first
Project Specification put forward as a candidate for OASIS Standard so adjust
public review metadata accordingly.
The results of this submission may be viewed at:
http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/TCADMIN



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.3#803004)



--

Chet Ensign

Chief Technical Community Steward

OASIS Open

   
+1 201-341-1393
chet.ensign@...
www.oasis-open.org

Join oslc-op-pgb@lists.oasis-open-projects.org to automatically receive all group messages.