[KI-LC] Types of Group Output

J. Trent Adams adams at isoc.org
Tue Sep 8 09:25:28 PDT 2009

Paul -

It is my understanding that a "Technical Specification" is a document
that clearly defines how to build and deploy a solution for an
identified set of requirements.

I'd suggest that something akin to a Best Practices Deployment Guide
would not be considered a Technical Specification as it won't contain
the same level of specificity.  Rather, the guide relies on the more
detailed specification in order to be useful.

Further, while someone MUST adhere to the rules identified in the
specification, a deployment guide would most likely be only one
suggested method.

- Trent

Paul Madsen wrote:
> Thanks Trent, so the question becomes then, what is a 'technical
> specification'?
> 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?
> paul
> 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

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