[KI-LC] Types of Group Output

J. Trent Adams adams at isoc.org
Tue Sep 8 07:28:05 PDT 2009

Paul -

Paul Madsen wrote:
> Thanks for the overview Trent.
> Other than the voting process & resultant 'branding' implications, is
> there a difference between report & recommendation in the nature of
> their allowed content?

Here's what the OP and Bylaws have to say:

“Recommendation” shall mean any output of a Work Group (e.g. draft
Specification, policy, guidelines, procedures, etc.) that has been
approved by a
Supermajority of those Voting in an All Member Ballot. (Bylaws 1.15)

“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
to the Leadership Council.  A Report is not a branded product of the
(i.e. it is not submitted for an All Member Ballot). (OP 1.7)

So, from what I can tell, the only limitation is that Reports can't be
technical specifications.  They seem to be able to convey anything else.

- Trent

> paul
> J. Trent Adams wrote:
>> All -
>> It's exciting that so many groups are actively working.  As such, there
>> is already interest in the process of moving the final output from the
>> groups out into the world.  I've put together a couple notes that should
>> help provide some guidance.
>> The KI rules provide for two output types:
>>  1. Report
>>  2. Recommendation
>> In short, a Report is a general document that's officially published by
>> the WG/DGs, but is not branded as KI output.  Recommendations, on the
>> other hand, are documents produced by WGs (not DGs) that can be ratified
>> by an all-member ballot as officially branded KI output.  These two
>> types provide a lot of flexibility for various opinions to co-exist and
>> be heard while protecting the integrity of the voice of the entire
>> initiative.
>> If, for example, your WG would like to publicly comment on a topic you
>> could do so by producing a Report or a Recommendation.  The difference
>> is that one carries the full weight of the KI membership while the other
>> is a statement coming from the WG/DG itself.
>> The process for a WG/DG producing a Report is simple.  After a Majority
>> of the Group votes to approve it, the Report is submitted to the
>> Leadership Council, and it is thus recorded as official output of the
>> Group.  At that point it can be publicized as the voice of the Group.
>> The process for a WG producing a Recommendation is a bit more
>> rigorous. It starts the same way as a Report out of the WG with a
>> Majority of the
>> Group voting to approve it as a Draft Recommendation.  Once it is
>> submitted, the LC will review it to ensure it's within the scope of the
>> WG charter.  After the LC approves it by a Simple Majority of those
>> voting, it is made available for at least a 45-day review period by the
>> full KI Membership.  At the end of the review, the LC Secretary
>> initiates an All Member Ballot.  This ballot will be conducted via email
>> and will be open for at least 14 days.  The Recommendation will become
>> officially branded KI output if a Supermajority of those Voting in the
>> All Member Ballot agree.
>> As you can see, it's a lot easier (and faster) to produce a Report than
>> a Recommendation, though it falls short of being able to carry the
>> imprimatur of KI.  Also, there is nothing in the rules that indicates a
>> Report can't be made into a Recommendation, if that path meets the needs
>> of the WG.
>> Any output that's short of a Report or Recommendation, though, should be
>> considered the opinion of the individual person/people and not the WG/DG
>> or KI.
>> For more detailed information, you may went to review the following from
>> the Operating Procedure (OP) [1] and the Bylaws [2]:
>>  * OP 0 "Scope"
>>  * OP 2.6 "Voting"
>>  * OP 1.4 “Draft Recommendation”
>>  * Bylaws 1.15 “Recommendation”
>>  * OP 1.7 "Report"
>>  * OP 5 "All-Member Ballot of a Draft Recommendation"
>> I hope this helps, but please feel free to reply to this or contact me
>> with any comments, questions, or suggestions.  If it sounds like we may
>> need to modify the OP in any way, we should capture the thoughts in
>> the Operating Procedures Review page on the wiki [3].
>> Cheers,
>> Trent
>> [1]
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/2293776/Kantara+Initiative+Operating+Procedures+_V1.0_+2009-04-03.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1245549205000
>> [2]
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/download/attachments/2293776/Kantara+Initiative+ByLaws_v1.0_+2009-04-03.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1239840451000
>> [3]
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/LC/Operating+Procedures+Review

J. Trent Adams

Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society

e) adams at isoc.org
o) 703-439-2149

More information about the LC mailing list