[KI-LC] Cheat sheet for Recommendation process

Eve Maler eve at xmlgrrl.com
Wed Mar 9 22:42:46 CST 2016

I believe the key sentences in the Operating Procedures are:

   - "A Simple Majority of those Voting [in a WG] is required to approve
   the submission of a Draft Recommendation to the LC for All Member Ballot."
   - "When a Draft Recommendation is completed by a Work Group, it is
   submitted to the Leadership Council for an All Member Ballot. It is the
   LC’s responsibility to certify that the WG draft is within the scope of the
   WG charter; meets the Draft Recommendation document requirements; and is
   ready for an All Member Ballot. This is a two-step process. Step 1- The
   Technical Specification or other Draft Recommendation first must be made
   available for public review and comment for a period of at least 45 days.
   This review period is required to give sufficient time for Members to
   conduct internal legal and technical reviews of the Draft Recommendation.
   All comments received during the review shall be reported to both the LC
   and the WG that authored the Draft Recommendation. Step 2 – Upon completion
   of the 45-day public review period, a Simple Majority of those Voting of
   the LC is required to certify the Draft Recommendation ready for All Member
   Ballot. The LC Secretary shall then initiate the All Member Ballot. This
   ballot shall be conducted electronically and shall be open for a minimum of
   14 days."

There has been some confusion, I believe, around interpretation of how
Public Review has been handled. Does the LC approve the Draft
Recommendation to enable Public Review to go forward (which is how I seem
to recall we did it for the UMA specs), or does the LC approve the Draft
Recommendation only after Public Review is completed? The former seems more
appropriate, given that you wouldn't want a WG-self-approved draft going
out to the entire membership without the LC looking it over. But maybe we
can look at past LC motions and see if I'm wrong.

Assuming my interpretation and recollection are correct, following are the
required steps and parties:

   1. *WG:* Conduct a vote to approve the submission of a technical
   specification as a "candidate Draft Recommendation" to the LC for approval.
   2. *LC:* Conduct a vote to certify that the candidate Draft
   Recommendation is within the scope of the WG charter; meets the Draft
   Recommendation document requirements; and is ready for *Public Review*
   [[not All Member Ballot quite yet]].
   3. *WG and staff:* Prepare specification as "Draft Recommendation" for
   Public Review and publish, in coordination with the LC secretary. (In the
   past I have worked solely with staff on this, with no particular role for
   the LC secretary, I must admit.)
   4. *WG:* Publish response to any comments at conclusion of Public Review
   5. *LC secretary:* Launch All Member Ballot. (Or should they have two
   votes??) (In the past ... ditto.)
   6. *WG:* (Not required but we always do this!) Launch "get out the vote"
   effort with Kantara membership.

I feel like there's some more debugging that still needs to be done around
the process -- the OPs have more ambiguity hidden in there...

The UMA WG has come up with canonical wording for the Status of This
Document blurb on the first page of the spec when it comes to "draft
technical specification" to "candidate Draft Recommendation" to "Draft
Recommendation" to "Recommendation" stage changes. I'd have to dig that up.

*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20160309/4a5fcac2/attachment.html>

More information about the LC mailing list