> From: John Arwe/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS > To: [email protected], [email protected], > Date: 10/04/2011 09:37 AM > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] DRAFT of minor updates to RM 2.0 specification > ready for review > Sent by: [email protected] > > > Unless I hear of objections by email I will action the above on 30 > September and make these changes final. > Process issue: part of a transparent process is avoiding what are or even > might reasonably appear to be unilateral decisions, even "small" ones like > length of review period should be made at a working group meeting (Core, in > this case). As I remember the last Core meeting, we agreed that you'd draft > the diffs and Core members would review via email, nothing about length of > review period (miss on our part) http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/ > OslcCoreMeeting20110921 . > Especially when we're treading in new territory (adding to an existing spec > w/o a full new-version spec cycle), we need everyone to be comfortable with > events and transparency + clarity are key.
I don't consider this necessarily a process issue. WG are mostly self-directed with some general guidelines [1]. Could this guidelines be more complete? sure but we still need to make progress and we are being transparent about it. We discussed this at the RM meeting and thought it would be good to set a date so it wouldn't continue forever as there are implementers affected by this change. In my past life in W3C, we agreed to this 2 week review timeframe. We should discuss if this makes sense as a broader "guideline" but think it is still just that. We need to give folks enough time to review, depending on the proposed changes it may warrant a different review cycle. Be interested to see how others see this. -- Steve [1] - http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcWorkgroupPrinciplesandBestPractices
