[KI-LC] Types of Group Output

Paul Madsen paulmadsen at rogers.com
Tue Sep 8 08:57:28 PDT 2009

Thanks Trent, so the question becomes then, what is a 'technical 

Is it any doc with normative MUSTs & MAYs etc?

Would a deployment guideline (e.g. giving recommendations on how to 
deploy OpenID & SAML together) be considered a technical spec?


J. Trent Adams wrote:
> 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
> Technical
> 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
> 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). (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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc_kantarainitiative.org/attachments/20090908/a2702fa4/attachment.html>

More information about the LC mailing list