[KI-LC] "Reports" produced by WGs and DGs

[Eve Maler]

Folks-- I'm sending this as both a WG chair who is curious how this issue might apply to the UMA group, and as a member of the Info Sharing group where this issue just came up today.

The Operating Procedures seem to have a peculiarly shaped "hole" in them, and I don't see a Process Guidelines writeup on the LC wiki that covers this either. (Please forgive me if work in this area has been done; it's slipped my mind...)

In summary, the hole is that WG Reports are clearly produced solely by those WGs, but there is a hint that such Reports are intended to be submitted to LCs, for the purpose of approval. What we don't know is, to what end exactly? -- for submission to an All-Member Ballot eventually, or for a pat on the back, or what? And is submission->approval->(something) the expected path, an optional path, a 100% required path, or what?

Here is the blow-by-blow of all relevant mentions of "Reports" in the OPs:

====

The OPs define a Report as:

"“Report” shall mean any Work Group or Discussion Group output that is not a Technical Specification that is approved by a Majority of the Group and submitted to the Leadership Council. A Report is not a branded product of the Organization (i.e. it is not submitted for an All Member Ballot)." [Sec 1, defn 1.7]

====

It is suggested that a legitimate LC activity is to approve WG/DG Reports, as related in the section on LC voting, though it doesn't seem required and there is no purpose stated for doing this:

"The following actions require a Simple Majority of those voting:
Approval of the formation of a Work Group;
Dissolution of a Work Group or a Discussion Group;
Certification of a Draft Recommendation as ready for All Member Ballot;
Approval of Work Group and Discussion Group Reports; and
All actions not specifically identified elsewhere in these procedures" [Sec 2.6]

====

It's quite clear that WG/DG Reports aren't official Kantara outputs. For example:

"The WG shall elect from its Participants one or more Editors to produce draft Technical Specifications, other Draft Recommendations, and/or Reports." [Sec 3 intro]

and (note that submission hint again):

"In addition to development of the Draft Recommendation(s) authorized in the Work Group Charter the WG may find it appropriate to develop additional Reports. These Reports shall meet any requirements established by the LC.
Submission of a report to the LC requires a Simple Majority approval of the WG." [Sec 3.9]

and:

"WG and DG Reports are not directly Organization branded and do not imply any position by the Organization Membership. Reports are titled:
“Kantara Initiative {Work/Discussion} Group XYZ {Final/Interim} Report”." [Sec 7.5]

====

So, can the LC clarify what the expectations are? Is this a good thing to make a Process Guideline or some other explanatory memo about, once we figure it out?

Thanks,

Eve (for Joe and the rest of the InfoSharing gang)

Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
+1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl

_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

[Bob Pinheiro]

Having just gone through this exercise with the CIWG Interim Report, I
too was a bit puzzled by the need to have the LC vote on the report.
Since the WG Report, once approved by both the WG and the LC, does not
represent an official Kantara position, I can only surmise that the
intent of the LC approval process is to act as a kind of final sanity
check before the report is published as a "Kantara Initiative WG
Report." In practice, however, it can't be assumed that LC members will
have necessarily reviewed a report before voting on it. With that in
mind, it's not clear to me that a LC vote should be required, unless
someone else can provide a rationale.

Bob

[J. Trent Adams]

Eve -

Bob's got it right... the LC provides a "sanity check" on the report
(e.g. that they've followed the rules), and is not intended (and hasn't
been historically applied) as an evaluation of the reported work itself.

IMO, a vote by the LC is a necessary step in letting the world know that
the report was created according to our accepted process.

Perhaps it'd make sense to update the OP accordingly.

YMMV,
Trent

--
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams

Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society
http://www.isoc.org

e) ad...@isoc.org
o) +1-703-439-2149

[John Bradley]

We should also clarify the operating rules that say that a report isn't Kantara branded while at the same time having the report template contain the Kantara logo.

I suspect the correct answer is that they are marked draft repots until the LC votes on them, to assure the process has been followed by the WG than they can be circulated as a Final WG report with the Kantara logo (perhaps with a disclaimer explaining that a report has not been voted on by the Kantara membership)

The other reason for bringing them to the LC is that it gives them a cross WG visibility that they would not have if they remained inside the WG.

John B.

[Joni Brennan]

+1 to these responses.  It seems to make good sense that an Operating Procedures (OP) would help to explain the context.  I have another OP related item I'd like to add under AoB on next LC call.  Perhaps we'd try to tackle a few OP updates all at once through LC and then All Members.

thx

Joni Brennan
IEEE-ISTO
Kantara Initiative | Managing Director
voice:+1 732-226-4223
email: joni @ ieee-isto.org
gtalk: jonibrennan
skype: upon request

Join the conversation on the community@ list -
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community

[j stollman]

Perhaps the issue stems from the vague definition of "Report."  I have witnessed at least two types of reports.  There are Reports crafted for internal KI purposes (even if they are viewable by the public) and then there are Reports that are explicitly targeted at an external audience.  The first group of Reports includes annual work-group reports summarizing work-group activities.  A second group of Reports are externally targeted reports that require approval by vote of the entire Kantara membership.  There are likely other categories.

It may be appropriate to define these various subsets (or rename some of them to avoid confusion) and then clarify procedures for each.

Jeff

Jeff Stollman
stoll...@gmail.com
1 202.683.8699

[Eve Maler]

Hi Jeff-- In my roundup of OP wording (doing a lot of searches on the word "report" :-), I noticed that the first kind you describe were universally spelled lowercase, and the second kind were uppercased and formally defined in the front.

The suggestions earlier in the thread seem to suggest that a Report should be considered a draft even once voted on by a WG, until the LC has done a check and voted it out as having conformed to KI rules. And only then should it be considered final. While this is sensible, the wording of the OPs doesn't naturally lead one to this conclusion, so we should be aware that there may be some confusion until we fix it.

Joni suggested that we actually revise the OPs, if I'm understanding correctly. I'm certainly amenable to that. We probably need someone to propose wording changes. I could sign up for that, but would need to delay by about a month (due to lots and lots of travel...).

Eve

[j stollman]

Eve,

If we can find some time next week at IIW, maybe we can work up some new wording together.  I hope to be around for the Monday UMA session.  Perhaps we could get together before or after that session.

Jeff

[Colin Wallis]

Has the debate been had and done on exactly what it is we are trying to achieve with the LC loop ?

Joe and I have been having a somewhat frank exchange of views on this between us...

Cheers
Colin

---

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:03:35 -0400
From: stoll...@gmail.com
To: e...@xmlgrrl.com
CC: j...@andrieu.net; L...@kantarainitiative.org
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] "Reports" produced by WGs and DGs

[Eve Maler]

I don't know if the debate has been fully held, but the suggestion is that LC approval amounts to the kind of checking that the Secretary would do on a proposed charter: does it live up to the rules of format and WG approval set forth by the OPs? (Typing this just now, I realize that sounds kind of circular since we're discussing revising the OPs. :-) An alternate suggestion might be that the LC needs to approve the content in a deeper fashion, perhaps referring back to the group's charter and ensuring that the content is somehow in keeping with the group's overall function. I'm open to that. But a "semantic" role in LC approval doesn't seem to match its usual role in such things.

Eve

_______________________________________________ LC mailing list L...@kantarainitiative.org http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_______________________________________________

LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

[Bob Pinheiro]

Once a WG Report is approved by the WG itself, I believe that the only role for the LC at that point is to ensure that proper procedures have been followed, and that the correct copyright notice and formatting have been applied, etc.� In fact, that seems more like a job for the LC secretary, or perhaps even the Kantara staff, rather than the LC itself.� So while it's important to ensure that published WG Reports conform to these procedural requirements, it's not clear to me that LC members themselves are the appropriate people to do this review, or even that individual LC members will actually have done this prior to voting.

Once WG Reports receive final approval, in whatever manner that occurs, it might be useful for someone (staff?� WG Chair? LC Secretary?) to send an email announcement to the LC list and/or the Community list.

I would oppose any effort to have the LC review WG� Reports for content and/or conformance to the WG's Charter.� I don't think that's an appropriate role for the LC to play, nor do I believe that individual LC members will necessarily have the interest or time to do a deep dive into other WG's Reports.

Bob

On 10/29/2010 10:27 AM, Eve Maler wrote:

I don't know if the debate has been fully held, but the suggestion is that LC approval amounts to the kind of checking that the Secretary would do on a proposed charter: does it live up to the rules of format and WG approval set forth by the OPs? (Typing this just now, I realize that sounds kind of circular since we're discussing revising the OPs. :-) An alternate suggestion might be that the LC needs to approve the content in a deeper fashion, perhaps referring back to the group's charter and ensuring that the content is somehow in keeping with the group's overall function. I'm open to that. But a "semantic" role in LC approval doesn't seem to match its usual role in such things.

Eve

On 28 Oct 2010, at 7:42 PM, Colin Wallis wrote:

Has the debate been had and done on exactly what it is we are trying to achieve with the LC loop ?

Joe and I have been having a somewhat frank exchange of views on this between us...

Cheers
Colin

---

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:03:35 -0400

From:�stoll...@gmail.com
To:�e...@xmlgrrl.com
CC:�j...@andrieu.net;�L...@kantarainitiative.org

Subject: Re: [KI-LC] "Reports" produced by WGs and DGs

Eve,

If we can find some time next week at IIW, maybe we can work up some new wording together.� I hope to be around for the Monday UMA session.� Perhaps we could get together before or after that session.

Jeff

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Eve Maler�<e...@xmlgrrl.com>�wrote:

Hi Jeff-- In my roundup of OP wording (doing a lot of searches on the word "report" :-), I noticed that the first kind you describe were universally spelled lowercase, and the second kind were uppercased and formally defined in the front.

The suggestions earlier in the thread seem to suggest that a Report should be considered a draft even once voted on by a WG, until the LC has done a check and voted it out as having conformed to KI rules. And only then should it be considered final. While this is sensible, the wording of the OPs doesn't naturally lead one to this conclusion, so we should be aware that there may be some confusion until we fix it.

Joni suggested that we actually revise the OPs, if I'm understanding correctly. I'm certainly amenable to that. We probably need someone to propose wording changes. I could sign up for that, but would need to delay by about a month (due to lots and lots of travel...).

Eve

On 26 Oct 2010, at 9:00 AM, j stollman wrote:

Perhaps the issue stems from the vague definition of "Report."� I have witnessed at least two types of reports.� There are Reports crafted for internal KI purposes (even if they are viewable by the public) and then there are Reports that are explicitly targeted at an external audience.� The first group of Reports includes annual work-group reports summarizing work-group activities.� A second group of Reports are externally targeted reports that require approval by vote of the entire Kantara membership.� There are likely other categories.

It may be appropriate to define these various subsets (or rename some of them to avoid confusion) and then clarify procedures for each.

Jeff

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Joni Brennan�<jo...@ieee-isto.org>�wrote:

+1 to these responses.� It seems to make good sense that an Operating Procedures (OP) would help to explain the context.� I have another OP related item I'd like to add under AoB on next LC call.� Perhaps we'd try to tackle a few OP updates all at once through LC and then All Members.�

thx

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:51 PM, John Bradley�<jbra...@mac.com>�wrote:

We should also clarify the operating rules that say that a report isn't Kantara branded while at the same time having the report template contain the Kantara logo.

I suspect the correct answer is that they are marked draft repots until the LC votes on them, to assure the process has been followed by the WG than they can be circulated as a Final WG report with the Kantara logo (perhaps with a disclaimer explaining that a report has not been voted on by the Kantara membership)

The other reason for bringing them to the LC is that it gives them a cross WG visibility that they would not have if they remained inside the WG.

John B.

On 2010-10-26, at 4:24 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:

>
> Eve -
>
> Bob's got it right... the LC provides a "sanity check" on the report
> (e.g. that they've followed the rules), and is not intended (and hasn't
> been historically applied) as an evaluation of the reported work itself.
>
> IMO, a vote by the LC is a necessary step in letting the world know that
> the report was created according to our accepted process.
>
> Perhaps it'd make sense to update the OP accordingly.
>
> YMMV,
> Trent
>
>
> Bob Pinheiro wrote:
>> Having just gone through this exercise with the CIWG Interim Report, I
>> too was a bit puzzled by the need to have the LC vote on the report.
>> Since the WG Report, once approved by both the WG and the LC, does not
>> represent an official Kantara position, I can only surmise that the
>> intent of the LC approval process is to act as a kind of final sanity
>> check before the report is published as a "Kantara Initiative WG

>> Report." �In practice, however, it can't be assumed that LC members will
>> have necessarily reviewed a report before voting on it. �With that in

>> mind, it's not clear to me that a LC vote should be required, unless
>> someone else can provide a rationale.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> On 10/25/2010 4:55 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
>>
>>> Folks-- I'm sending this as both a WG chair who is curious how this issue might apply to the UMA group, and as a member of the Info Sharing group where this issue just came up today.
>>>

>>> The Operating Procedures seem to have a peculiarly shaped "hole" in them, and I don't see a Process Guidelines writeup on the LC wiki that covers this either. �(Please forgive me if work in this area has been done; it's slipped my mind...)
>>>
>>> In summary, the hole is that WG Reports are clearly produced solely by those WGs, but there is a hint that such Reports are intended to be submitted to LCs, for the purpose of approval. �What we don't know is, to what end exactly? -- for submission to an All-Member Ballot eventually, or for a pat on the back, or what? �And is submission->approval->(something) the expected path, an optional path, a 100% required path, or what?

>>>
>>> Here is the blow-by-blow of all relevant mentions of "Reports" in the OPs:
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> The OPs define a Report as:
>>>

>>> "�Report� shall mean any Work Group or Discussion Group output that is not a Technical Specification that is approved by a Majority of the Group and submitted to the Leadership Council. A Report is not a branded product of the Organization (i.e. it is not submitted for an All Member Ballot)." [Sec 1, defn 1.7]

>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> It is suggested that a legitimate LC activity is to approve WG/DG Reports, as related in the section on LC voting, though it doesn't seem required and there is no purpose stated for doing this:
>>>
>>> "The following actions require a Simple Majority of those voting:

>>> � Approval of the formation of a Work Group;
>>> � Dissolution of a Work Group or a Discussion Group;
>>> � Certification of a Draft Recommendation as ready for All Member Ballot;
>>> � Approval of Work Group and Discussion Group Reports; and
>>> � All actions not specifically identified elsewhere in these procedures" [Sec 2.6]
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> It's quite clear that WG/DG Reports aren't official Kantara outputs. �For example:

>>>
>>> "The WG shall elect from its Participants one or more Editors to produce draft Technical Specifications, other Draft Recommendations, and/or Reports." [Sec 3 intro]
>>>
>>> and (note that submission hint again):
>>>
>>> "In addition to development of the Draft Recommendation(s) authorized in the Work Group Charter the WG may find it appropriate to develop additional Reports. These Reports shall meet any requirements established by the LC.
>>> Submission of a report to the LC requires a Simple Majority approval of the WG." [Sec 3.9]
>>>
>>> and:
>>>
>>> "WG and DG Reports are not directly Organization branded and do not imply any position by the Organization Membership. Reports are titled:

>>> �Kantara Initiative {Work/Discussion} Group XYZ {Final/Interim} Report�." [Sec 7.5]
>>>
>>> ====
>>>
>>> So, can the LC clarify what the expectations are? �Is this a good thing to make a Process Guideline or some other explanatory memo about, once we figure it out?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> � � Eve (for Joe and the rest of the InfoSharing gang)
>>>
>>> Eve Maler � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>>> +1 425 345 6756 � � � � � � � � � � � ��http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LC mailing list
>>>�L...@kantarainitiative.org
>>>�http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>>�L...@kantarainitiative.org
>>�http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

>>
>
> --
> J. Trent Adams
> =jtrentadams
>
> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
> Internet Society

>�http://www.isoc.org
>
> e)�ad...@isoc.org

> o) +1-703-439-2149
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list

>�L...@kantarainitiative.org
>�http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

--�

Joni Brennan
IEEE-ISTO
Kantara Initiative | Managing Director
voice:+1 732-226-4223

email: joni @�ieee-isto.org

gtalk: jonibrennan
skype: upon request

Join the conversation on the community@ list -�

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community







_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

--�

Jeff Stollman
stoll...@gmail.com
1 202.683.8699
_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

Eve Maler � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog

+1 425 345 6756 � � � � � � � � � � � ��http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl

--�

Jeff Stollman
stoll...@gmail.com
1 202.683.8699

_______________________________________________ LC mailing list�L...@kantarainitiative.org�http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_______________________________________________

LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

Eve Maler � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog

+1 425 345 6756 � � � � � � � � � � � � http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl

_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

�

[J. Trent Adams]

All -

I believe it will help to clarify the goals to ensure we're not just
making up rules for fun. Specifically in this case, I see the goals of
LC-level oversight of WG/DG Reports being:

1. The Report adheres to the Group's charter.

2. The rules for producing the Report were
followed by the Group.

3. The appropriate steps will be taken when
publishing the Report (i.e. the logo and
marks are used correctly).

As I think we all agree, I don't believe a goal of the oversight it so
vet the content of the Report.

I do see that the LC Secretary could perform the evaluation of 2 and 3
as they're largely mechanical. I do believe, however, that the
Secretary shouldn't be the sole evaluator of 1; that seems to be a more
subjective evaluation left up to the full LC.

Finally, addressing an earlier point... I personally don't think it's a
great idea to start layering in a taxonomy of different Report types.
From my read of the OP, a Report is simply our term meaning official
output of a Group (that can take any form). I can see a never-ending
discussion about whether this Report or that Report are of this Type,
that Type, or should be a new Type.

Thoughts,
Trent

Bob Pinheiro wrote:
> Once a WG Report is approved by the WG itself, I believe that the only
> role for the LC at that point is to ensure that proper procedures have
> been followed, and that the correct copyright notice and formatting

> have been applied, etc. In fact, that seems more like a job for the

> LC secretary, or perhaps even the Kantara staff, rather than the LC

> itself. So while it's important to ensure that published WG Reports

> conform to these procedural requirements, it's not clear to me that LC
> members themselves are the appropriate people to do this review, or
> even that individual LC members will actually have done this prior to
> voting.
>
> Once WG Reports receive final approval, in whatever manner that

> occurs, it might be useful for someone (staff? WG Chair? LC

> Secretary?) to send an email announcement to the LC list and/or the
> Community list.
>

> I would oppose any effort to have the LC review WG Reports for
> content and/or conformance to the WG's Charter. I don't think that's

> an appropriate role for the LC to play, nor do I believe that
> individual LC members will necessarily have the interest or time to do
> a deep dive into other WG's Reports.
>
> Bob
>
> On 10/29/2010 10:27 AM, Eve Maler wrote:
>> I don't know if the debate has been fully held, but the suggestion is
>> that LC approval amounts to the kind of checking that the Secretary
>> would do on a proposed charter: does it live up to the rules of
>> format and WG approval set forth by the OPs? (Typing this just now, I
>> realize that sounds kind of circular since we're discussing revising
>> the OPs. :-) An alternate suggestion might be that the LC needs to
>> approve the content in a deeper fashion, perhaps referring back to
>> the group's charter and ensuring that the content is somehow in
>> keeping with the group's overall function. I'm open to that. But a
>> "semantic" role in LC approval doesn't seem to match its usual role
>> in such things.
>>
>> Eve
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2010, at 7:42 PM, Colin Wallis wrote:
>>
>>> Has the debate been had and done on exactly what it is we are trying
>>> to achieve with the LC loop ?
>>>
>>> Joe and I have been having a somewhat frank exchange of views on
>>> this between us...
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Colin
>>>

>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:03:35 -0400

>>> From: stoll...@gmail.com <mailto:stoll...@gmail.com>
>>> To: e...@xmlgrrl.com <mailto:e...@xmlgrrl.com>
>>> CC: j...@andrieu.net
>>> <mailto:j...@andrieu.net>; L...@kantarainitiative.org
>>> <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>

>>> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] "Reports" produced by WGs and DGs
>>>
>>> Eve,
>>>
>>> If we can find some time next week at IIW, maybe we can work up some

>>> new wording together. I hope to be around for the Monday UMA
>>> session. Perhaps we could get together before or after that session.
>>>
>>> Jeff

>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Eve Maler <e...@xmlgrrl.com
>>> <mailto:e...@xmlgrrl.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jeff-- In my roundup of OP wording (doing a lot of searches
>>> on the word "report" :-), I noticed that the first kind you
>>> describe were universally spelled lowercase, and the second kind
>>> were uppercased and formally defined in the front.
>>>
>>> The suggestions earlier in the thread seem to suggest that a
>>> Report should be considered a draft even once voted on by a WG,
>>> until the LC has done a check and voted it out as having
>>> conformed to KI rules. And only then should it be considered
>>> final. While this is sensible, the wording of the OPs doesn't
>>> naturally lead one to this conclusion, so we should be aware
>>> that there may be some confusion until we fix it.
>>>
>>> Joni suggested that we actually revise the OPs, if I'm
>>> understanding correctly. I'm certainly amenable to that. We
>>> probably need someone to propose wording changes. I could sign
>>> up for that, but would need to delay by about a month (due to
>>> lots and lots of travel...).
>>>
>>> Eve
>>>
>>> On 26 Oct 2010, at 9:00 AM, j stollman wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps the issue stems from the vague definition of

>>> "Report." I have witnessed at least two types of reports.

>>> There are Reports crafted for internal KI purposes (even if
>>> they are viewable by the public) and then there are Reports

>>> that are explicitly targeted at an external audience. The

>>> first group of Reports includes annual work-group reports

>>> summarizing work-group activities. A second group of

>>> Reports are externally targeted reports that require

>>> approval by vote of the entire Kantara membership. There

>>> are likely other categories.
>>>
>>> It may be appropriate to define these various subsets (or
>>> rename some of them to avoid confusion) and then clarify
>>> procedures for each.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Joni

>>> Brennan <jo...@ieee-isto.org <mailto:jo...@ieee-isto.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to these responses. It seems to make good sense that

>>> an Operating Procedures (OP) would help to explain the

>>> context. I have another OP related item I'd like to add
>>> under AoB on next LC call. Perhaps we'd try to tackle a

>>> few OP updates all at once through LC and then All Members.
>>>

>>> >> Report." In practice, however, it can't be

>>> assumed that LC members will
>>> >> have necessarily reviewed a report before voting

>>> on it. With that in

>>> >> mind, it's not clear to me that a LC vote should
>>> be required, unless
>>> >> someone else can provide a rationale.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bob
>>> >>
>>> >> On 10/25/2010 4:55 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Folks-- I'm sending this as both a WG chair who
>>> is curious how this issue might apply to the UMA
>>> group, and as a member of the Info Sharing group
>>> where this issue just came up today.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The Operating Procedures seem to have a
>>> peculiarly shaped "hole" in them, and I don't see a
>>> Process Guidelines writeup on the LC wiki that

>>> covers this either. (Please forgive me if work in

>>> this area has been done; it's slipped my mind...)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In summary, the hole is that WG Reports are
>>> clearly produced solely by those WGs, but there is a
>>> hint that such Reports are intended to be submitted

>>> to LCs, for the purpose of approval. What we don't

>>> know is, to what end exactly? -- for submission to
>>> an All-Member Ballot eventually, or for a pat on the

>>> back, or what? And is

>>> submission->approval->(something) the expected path,
>>> an optional path, a 100% required path, or what?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Here is the blow-by-blow of all relevant mentions
>>> of "Reports" in the OPs:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ====
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The OPs define a Report as:
>>> >>>

>>> >>> "“Report” shall mean any Work Group or Discussion

>>> Group output that is not a Technical Specification
>>> that is approved by a Majority of the Group and
>>> submitted to the Leadership Council. A Report is not
>>> a branded product of the Organization (i.e. it is
>>> not submitted for an All Member Ballot)." [Sec 1,
>>> defn 1.7]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ====
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It is suggested that a legitimate LC activity is
>>> to approve WG/DG Reports, as related in the section
>>> on LC voting, though it doesn't seem required and
>>> there is no purpose stated for doing this:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "The following actions require a Simple Majority
>>> of those voting:

>>> >>> Approval of the formation of a Work Group;

>>> >>> Dissolution of a Work Group or a Discussion Group;

>>> >>> Certification of a Draft Recommendation as
>>> ready for All Member Ballot;

>>> >>> Approval of Work Group and Discussion Group
>>> Reports; and

>>> >>> All actions not specifically identified
>>> elsewhere in these procedures" [Sec 2.6]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> ====
>>> >>>
>>> >>> It's quite clear that WG/DG Reports aren't

>>> official Kantara outputs. For example:

>>> >>>
>>> >>> "The WG shall elect from its Participants one or
>>> more Editors to produce draft Technical
>>> Specifications, other Draft Recommendations, and/or
>>> Reports." [Sec 3 intro]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> and (note that submission hint again):
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "In addition to development of the Draft
>>> Recommendation(s) authorized in the Work Group
>>> Charter the WG may find it appropriate to develop
>>> additional Reports. These Reports shall meet any
>>> requirements established by the LC.
>>> >>> Submission of a report to the LC requires a
>>> Simple Majority approval of the WG." [Sec 3.9]
>>> >>>
>>> >>> and:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "WG and DG Reports are not directly Organization
>>> branded and do not imply any position by the
>>> Organization Membership. Reports are titled:

>>> >>> “Kantara Initiative {Work/Discussion} Group XYZ
>>> {Final/Interim} Report”." [Sec 7.5]

>>> >>>
>>> >>> ====
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So, can the LC clarify what the expectations are?

>>> Is this a good thing to make a Process Guideline or
>>> some other explanatory memo about, once we figure it
>>> out?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>

>>> >>> Eve (for Joe and the rest of the InfoSharing
>>> gang)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Eve Maler

>>> http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>>> >>> +1 425 345 6756

>>> http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> LC mailing list
>>> >>> L...@kantarainitiative.org

>>> <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>

>>> >>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> LC mailing list
>>> >> L...@kantarainitiative.org

>>> <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>

>>> >> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > J. Trent Adams
>>> > =jtrentadams
>>> >
>>> > Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
>>> > Internet Society

>>> > http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/>
>>> >
>>> > e) ad...@isoc.org <mailto:ad...@isoc.org>

>>> > o) +1-703-439-2149
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > LC mailing list

>>> > L...@kantarainitiative.org
>>> <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>

>>> > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LC mailing list
>>> L...@kantarainitiative.org

>>> <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>
>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --

>>> Joni Brennan
>>> IEEE-ISTO
>>> Kantara Initiative | Managing Director
>>> voice:+1 732-226-4223

>>> email: joni @ ieee-isto.org <http://ieee-isto.org/>

>>> gtalk: jonibrennan
>>> skype: upon request
>>>
>>> Join the conversation on the community@ list -

>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LC mailing list

>>> L...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>

>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeff Stollman

>>> stoll...@gmail.com <mailto:stoll...@gmail.com>

>>> 1 202.683.8699
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LC mailing list

>>> L...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>
>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Eve Maler

>>> http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>>> +1 425 345 6756

>>> http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeff Stollman

>>> stoll...@gmail.com <mailto:stoll...@gmail.com>

>>> 1 202.683.8699
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ LC mailing
>>> list L...@kantarainitiative.org

>>> <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_______________________________________________
>>> LC mailing list
>>> L...@kantarainitiative.org <mailto:L...@kantarainitiative.org>
>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>>
>> Eve Maler http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
>> +1 425 345 6756 http://www.twitter.com/xmlgrrl

>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> L...@kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> L...@kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>

--
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams

Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society

http://www.isoc.org

e) ad...@isoc.org
o) +1-703-439-2149

_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
L...@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

[Joe Andrieu]

I've yet to see an argument as to why it is more economic to require approval for every report verses correcting errors after the fact.

A required review process is a burden both to the work group and to the LC for every single report, potentially every time it goes through a significant revision. A corrective regime, however, would only incur a cost when there's a bad report published.

Do we really anticipate such a large number of inappropriate reports that it justifies a top-down approval process for everything? 

Consider that any report worthy of the name is from a duly chartered work group, with duly elected leadership, after a vote at a duly held meeting, and publishing those reports on the Kantara website, which is entirely under staff control.

I doubt the costs of correction is any higher than the costs of review on a per-report basis. And yet, we have placed that burden on every single report rather than minimizing our overhead and paying the price of oversight only when there is a problem.

The ISWG is now heading into IIW without the two reports we had anticipating publishing at the workshop, entirely due to the inherent costs of the LC review process, even though we had worked directly with Trent as LC Chairman to assure a smooth approval. If it weren't for that overhead, we could actually leverage our Kantara work to engage a broader conversation with the very audience we wrote it for. Instead, by the time this particular community comes together again next May, the conversation will likely have moved on, both in the community at large, and within our own work group. And we're stuck with that because, in essence, we have to ask the LC for permission to publish our work.

I'll go further than Bob and suggest that the entire idea of requiring approval is not just an unnecessary waste of time and effort, it is an affront to the character of the leadership of our work groups.

Could someone outline the argument in favor of required approvals?

-j

Joe Andrieu
j...@andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651

[John Bradley]

Joe ,

I don't know what discussions were had with Trent,  but the reports were submitted to the LC hours before the call on Wednesday.

It is unfortunate that we didn't have the quorum to pass them.    I don't recall anyone from the WG on the call asking for them to be expedited.

I understand IIW is important and would support having a electronic ballot to approve them.

In the interim there is nothing to prevent you from distributing and discussing them as draft reports. 

I agree we need to look at the operating procedures for this.  However we should try and address your immediate problem first.

I think the fastest way to do that is to hold a electronic ballot before the next LC call.

Regards

John B.

[Joe Andrieu]

John,

Trent is pretty active in our group, so we conferred with him on the timing we'd need to get it approved by IIW. We had some commenters we were holding the door open for, so we knew we'd have a minimal amount of time to turn it around. Given the additional problems with the line numbers in the PDF, the window for the LC to actually review it was unfortunately even shorter than we'd hoped for. But that's sort of the point, here... why do we need the review at all?

We've missed the window for IIW. And because of the ambiguity in the OP the reports are now in an odd limbo. They aren't "final" but they are also not drafts. They have been approved by the working group and submitted, and the OP indicates that makes them non-draft reports. The publishing templates follow the same distinction as the OP. The "draft" templates state unambiguously that the report has not been approved by the Work Group. After discussing this with Eve last Monday, we agreed the OP clearly allowed for the documents to be "Work Group Reports" but that they couldn't be "Kantara Reports" without LC approval. That's almost certainly not what anyone intended, but it was the best we could determine from the current language.

So, not only do we have, IMO, an unnecessary requirement for LC approval, but that approval process is ambiguously defined and of uncertain delay and complication.

But I didn't raise the pain point of these two reports in order to resolve the problems with these reports. 

I raised the pain point because it is a concrete example of the costs incurred by the current review process by its very existence.

I'd like to know what people think we're getting in return for this cost.

It seems we are accepting a burden of pre-emptive policing for a problem we don't have.

-j

Joe Andrieu
j...@andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651

[John Bradley]

I see.

I don't think the intention ever was to have the LC block reports from WG.

However I do think it is a good idea for the chairs of the other WG to have visibility into WG reports.

Perhaps the OP need to allow for a WG to finalize a WG report,  but still keep step of having the LC receive the final report.

That allows the LC to know what WG are active and promotes cross WG communication without blocking publishing a report.

I don't think we can solve it before IIW,  however Eve and Joni and myself along with others will be their if we want to discuss it next week.

John B.

[Joe Andrieu]

John,

That's actually quite reasonable. Sending a report to the LC so that other leadership can be apprised of the work is a fine idea.

Requiring that the LC review the work and approve it in some manner suggests that work might well fail to get approval and would, in fact, be blocked by the LC. From what I can gather, that's the assumption underlying many of the comments on the topic. And it is that delay, cost, and uncertainty that doesn't make sense to me.

Your suggestion is actually in keeping with the current OP, so we'd just need to clarify to the community that the purpose of LC review is not for "approval" but for notice, and that neither a vote nor quorum is necessary for the Work Group to go ahead and publish the report.  In fact, that'd be the easiest solution procedurally since it wouldn't entail any changes to the OP at all.

Let's definitely discuss at IIW.

-j

Joe Andrieu
j...@andrieu.net
+1 (805) 705-8651

[Colin Wallis]

+1
I support this positioning.
Cheers
Colin

---

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:54:38 -0700
From: j...@andrieu.net
To: jbra...@mac.com
CC: l...@kantarainitiative.org