13 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.ditaRE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Bruce Nevin (bnevin) | Oct 13, 2010 7:33 am | |
| Doug Morrison | Oct 13, 2010 8:07 am | |
| Michael Boses | Oct 13, 2010 8:32 am | |
| Su-Laine Yeo | Oct 19, 2010 2:37 pm | |
| Michael Priestley | Oct 20, 2010 7:00 am | |
| Bruce Nevin (bnevin) | Oct 20, 2010 9:22 am | |
| Jang F.M. Graat | Oct 20, 2010 11:40 am | |
| Don Day (LbW) | Oct 20, 2010 11:55 am | |
| Su-Laine Yeo | Oct 20, 2010 11:57 am | |
| Bruce Nevin (bnevin) | Oct 20, 2010 12:01 pm | |
| Michael Boses | Oct 20, 2010 12:06 pm | |
| Jang F.M. Graat | Oct 20, 2010 8:04 pm | |
| Don Day (LbW) | Oct 20, 2010 9:46 pm |
| Subject: | RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Michael Priestley (mpri...@ca.ibm.com) | |
| Date: | Oct 20, 2010 7:00:52 am | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.dita | |
Sounds good to me. I'll add a quick thought for Michael B's question:
- refrain from presenting subcommittee work as an official OASIS TC position in a public forum (webinar, conference, white paper, etc)
I still need clarification on the second issue, as my understanding may allow more exposure of the subcommittee work than the TC would like.
I think the key phrase there is "as an official TC position". If it's presented as exploratory work to solicit feedback, I personally don't see any problem with that. But if it's presented as established strategy or direction, that would be dangerously misleading.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) Lead IBM DITA Architect mpri...@ca.ibm.com http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
From: "Su-Laine Yeo" <su-l...@justsystems.com> To: <di...@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 10/19/2010 05:46 PM Subject: RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming
Hi everyone,
Longer-term, I think we should move in the direction of having variety of standardized messages to display on documents to indicate their level of official-ness and final-ness, and put a message on every single document and web page that we make visible to the public. I'm more concerned about the public finding the TC's outdated versions of technical proposals for DITA features than about the public reading SC documents. Also, a lot of publicly-available content on OASIS's websites is simply the ideas of one or more individual TC members and isn't even approved by a subcommittee, and that stuff needs disclaimers most of all. But all that will require more mulling-over for a later time. End of rant for now ;)
For our immediate needs, I think the gist of Bruce's suggestion is good, and suggest the following rewordings for clarity:
"This document reflects exploratory work by a subcommittee of the DITA Technical Committee and is not endorsed by the DITA Technical Committee as a whole. It is not a reliable guide as to the future direction of DITA, and should not be taken as guidance for using DITA or for developing DITA tools."
W.r.t. Michael's request for guidance on the second issue he described, I don't have any thoughts at this time, although I appreciate the question.
Cheers, Su-Laine
Su-Laine Yeo Solutions Consultant JustSystems Canada, Inc. Office: 778-327-6356 sy...@justsystems.com
XMetaL Community Forums: http://forums.xmetal.com
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Boses [mailto:mbo...@QUARK.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:33 AM To: Doug Morrison; di...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming
Doug, I see the point that many entities outside of the DITA TC provide guidance. I think the issue here is clarification that subcommittees do not issue guidance. Official OASIS Guidance, when it originates in a subcommittee, is the result of subcommittee deliverables being vetted and incorporated into guidance by the parent committee.
At least this is how I understand it as someone trying to follow the rules as a subcommittee co-chair. There are two things we have been asked to do:
- place a caveat on our posts indicating their status as not approved for implementation (It looks like Bruce's wording achieves that).
- refrain from presenting subcommittee work as an official OASIS TC position in a public forum (webinar, conference, white paper, etc)
I still need clarification on the second issue, as my understanding may allow more exposure of the subcommittee work than the TC would like. Presenting some of the ideas of our subcommittee is the best way to vet them with the actual stakeholders in external organizations. We certainly can pass on that opportunity, but I need to make sure that is the TC's intention. It may be that any public presentations we make will need to include a disclaimer similar to the one we will place on posts.
Perhaps, Don, Michael, or others on the TC can clarify if and how we handle informing the public on progress and obtaining feedback.
Regards,
Michael Boses
-----Original Message----- From: Doug Morrison [mailto:dmor...@dita4all.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:07 AM To: di...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming
I think the final sentence "Such guidance is exclusively in the purview of the DITA Technical Committee" should be dropped - because it is not true as it stands, and not necessary.
Regards,
Doug Morrison Information Architect http://dita4all.com
On 13/10/2010 15:33, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
In yesterday's call, we talked about subcommittees needing some kind of cover for creative discussion and brainstorming so that outside readers of the discussion won't take it as guidance from the TC. The relevant bit from the minutes (as amended to include Seth's name):
Seth Park: For DITA and composite environments, we came up with a feature request that was technically not implementable. Is there a `code word' under which to talk in papers and not shut down creativity. MB: A standard disclaimer would be wonderful. Don, MP: Let's pursue that on the alias.
I imagine two aspects of a disclaimer, its content and its location.
For example, on the title page or in a footnote on the title or in a note paragraph placed prominently on the first page (to be decided), a subcommittee document might say something like:
This paper reflects exploratory work by a subcommittee of the DITA Technical Committee. It is not a reliable guide as to the future direction of DITA, and should not be taken as guidance for implementing or using DITA. Such guidance is exclusively in the purview of the DITA Technical Committee.
Let the discussion begin!
/B
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php