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


Chet Ensign
 

Andrew, I just went with the oslc-op@ main mailing list. Let's see how this works out in practice. 

I think the collecting of comments is a topic that will benefit from some experimentation. So we're good for now! 

/chet

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 4:03 PM Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...> wrote:
"We'll address that in the next Version", nice addition to my co-chair vocabulary :D

Regarding public comments, https://www.oasis-open.org/oasis-open-projects-handbook/ specifies that anyone with a GH account can leave "comments". On the other hand, the handbook indeed sends us the TC process for the COS and that document talks about a completely separate mailing list. We are fine with whatever process you can approve quickly. I think if we want to stick to the letter of the handbook and resolve it quickly, we shall either tell people to get a GH account and open an issue as per the handbook or to create a new list as per the TC process. Though you may use the rule/loophole §8.1/8.2 https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/open-projects-process/#repositories-project-tools-dvcs-issues and "bless" the Github repo or anything else as an officially selected tool for public review comments.

--
Cheers,
Andrew

On 2021-03-09 , at 21:00, Paul Knight <paul.knight@...> wrote:

Hi Andrew and all,

I do hope we can start the public reviews tomorrow, although there is still some question (apparently rule interpretations are involved) about how to handle the public comment submissions. (Andrew's suggestion [1] for using the regular OP email is very functional, but not yet approved by Chet, Jamie, etc.). When that is resolved, we'll send out the announcements and start the 60-day review.
(I've put the "public review metadata documents" in place with tomorrow's date, but will adjust the date if needed.)

Regarding the diagram (very nice!), I'm not certain if the "Material changes required" arrow MUST go back to "Prepare PSD" or if there is a way it can go more directly to publication of a new PS. After looking through the TC Process [2] and Open Project Rules [3], I think that you are right -  it DOES require returning to "Prepare PSD", as in your diagram. However, "Material change" [4] is a fairly high bar (requiring change in implementations), so it is very unusual at this stage. (For major change comments, the usual response is "We'll address that in the next Version...")

Best regards,
Paul


On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:08 PM Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...> wrote:
Hello Paul,

Great, let's start the public review tomorrow then. Thank you for all the hard work!

I am assuming Jim is also onboard given that we found a way forward without any delays. Also, nice to know that the PS goes to OS without publishing a COS document but a PS n+1 instead (hopefully). I made a quick and dirty process diagram (sorry, I copypasted a bit and misused some shapes). Could you please check if I am on the right track?

<OASIS OP 2021 process.png>
--
Cheers,
Andrew

On 2021-03-09 , at 19:38, Paul Knight <paul.knight@...> wrote:

Hi all,

Sounds like a good resolution here.

Just a couple of clarifications:

- I have no objections to any of the changes (in https://github.com/oasis-open-projects/administration/issues/19#issuecomment-778436803). My concern was how the changes in RM v2.1 are prepared for publication, and I believe we have resolved that now.

- About "COS" - Following the 2020 process changes, we no longer publish a "Candidate OASIS Standard" (COS) as a separate document. There is simply a 60-day public review of an existing Project Specification (PS). If the review results in "Non Material" changes, an updated PS (PS02, for example) is published, and it will be the subject of the "Call for consent". After approval, the updated PS will be published without further change (other than filenames, etc.) as an OASIS Standard. 
(If there are "Material" changes, the PS02 would need to receive new "Statements of Use" and undergo another 60-day review.)

Best regards,
Paul

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 12:52 PM Axel Reichwein <axel.reichwein@...> wrote:
I'm ok with the proposal.

Best regards,
Axel

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 2:34 PM Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@...> wrote:
Correct. I agreed that the changes are non-material. I just didn't take the time to think through the implications of how to handle that in the ballot. 

Andrew, what I mean is that the current PS01 will be opened up to public review in preparation for the call for consent. Paul or I will send your issues in #19 to the OP mailing list as review comments. (And, as you note, you may get others.) 

After the 60 day review closes, we will follow this section of the TC Process: 

If comments were received and only Non-Material Changes are to be made to the Committee Specification, the editor(s) may prepare a revised Committee Specification. Changes may only be made to address the comments. The TC must provide an acceptable summary that is clear and comprehensible of the changes made and a statement that the TC judges the changes to be Non-Material to the TC Administrator and request a Special Majority Vote to proceed with the call for consent. The TC Administrator shall hold the Special Majority Vote and announce it to the OASIS membership and optionally on other public mail lists along with the summary of changes and the TC’s statement. If the Special Majority Vote passes, the TC Administrator must start the call for consent for OASIS Standard within 7 days of notification.

In other words, we will take the ZIP file (or, if there are other modifications, that resulting file), publish it as PS02, and then hold the SMV to proceed with the call for consent. Once that passes, I will start the call. 

We can run Change Management in parallel with that if you like or process it independently. 

Yes, Jim, Axel, if you can confirm that this is OK by you, we'll move forward. 

/chet

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:07 PM Andrii Berezovskyi <andriib@...> wrote:
Hello Chet,

I am happy with the plan, sounds like a good way to kill two birds with one stone, esp. if some non-material changes will be requested during the review and we will need to make minor edits anyway. The only thing that raised I am curious about is:

Once that passes, we will publish the ZIP as PS02 and make it the candidate for the Call for Consent. 

The document you linked tells me that either those changes go into a "revised CS [PS]" if they are non-material or result in "a CSD [PSD]" and have another PS approved. Do you mean that this process allows us to take a PS01, take it to COS01, get comments and make non-material changes and when you open a ballot for an SMV, the "revised PS" will automatically be approved both as PS02 and COS01?

Finally, should we get all PGB members to reply here for a record that we [hereby] agree to proceed with the public review of RM COS 01 based on RM PS 01 as published in OASIS archive at http://docs.oasis-open-projects.org/oslc-op/rm/v2.1/ps01/ and not based on the attachment? I do approve that on my part.

Also, I think it should be Chet or Paul who will take the 8 extra changes I made and submit them as comments as I am not sure it will be OK for me to add public comments on the spec document I prepared myself.

--
Cheers,
Andrew

P.S. Jim, it was Chet who was OK with my changes when I asked, not Paul.

On 2021-03-08 , at 22:50, Chet Ensign <chet.ensign@...> wrote:

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



-- 

Chet Ensign

Chief Technical Community Steward
OASIS Open
     
+1 201-341-1393
chet.ensign@...
www.oasis-open.org


-- 

Paul Knight

Document Process
OASIS Open

+1 781-883-1783
paul.knight@...
www.oasis-open.org



--

Paul Knight

Document Process
OASIS Open

+1 781-883-1783
paul.knight@...
www.oasis-open.org



--

Chet Ensign

Chief Technical Community Steward

OASIS Open

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

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