[KI-LC] Cheat sheet for Recommendation process

[Eve Maler]

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
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20160310/f6e46f46/attachment.html>