[KI-LC] Cheat sheet for Recommendation process
eve at xmlgrrl.com
Thu Mar 10 13:49:01 CST 2016
Oops, I left off the final step:
- *WG and staff:* Assuming the ballot passes, prepare specification as
"Recommendation" for Public Review and publish (in coordination with the LC
secretary?). There are a few places on the website/wiki where text has to
change, notably this
<https://kantarainitiative.org/reports-recommendations/> and appropriate
subpage(s) and the relevant WG wiki page(s). There's a thread on the UMA WG
list where I have shared our process for changing soft links to point to
the latest "versioned" spec URL -- did I sen that here as well?
*Eve Maler*Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Mark Lizar <mark at smartspecies.com> wrote:
> Thanks Eve,
> This is awesome cheat sheet - much appreciated !!
> - Mark
> On 10 Mar 2016, at 04:42, Eve Maler <eve at xmlgrrl.com> wrote:
> 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 period.
> 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
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the LC