Re the added phrase:
> and is not endorsed by the DITA Technical Committee as a whole
We don't want it to sound like the TC disapproves of this work (or even
of SC work in general). How about something like "has not yet been taken
up as work of the Technical Committee as a whole"? That might look like
this:
"Because this document reflects exploratory work by a subcommittee
of the DITA Technical Committee, which has not yet been taken up
as work of the Technical Committee as a whole, it is not a reliable
guide as to the future direction of DITA, and should not be taken
as guidance for using DITA or for developing DITA tools."
________________________________
From: Michael Priestley [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:01 AM
To: Su-Laine Yeo
Cc:
Subject: RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming
Sounds good to me. I'll add a quick thought for Michael B's
question:
> - refrain from presenting subcommittee work as
an official OASIS
>TC position in a public forum (webinar, conference, white
paper, etc)
>
>I still need clarification on the second issue, as my
understanding may
>allow more exposure of the subcommittee work than the TC would
like.
I think the key phrase there is "as an official TC position". If
it's presented as exploratory work to solicit feedback, I personally
don't see any problem with that. But if it's presented as established
strategy or direction, that would be dangerously misleading.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 <http://dita.xml.org/blog/25>
From: "Su-Laine Yeo" <>
To: <>
Date: 10/19/2010 05:46 PM
Subject: RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming
________________________________
Hi everyone,
Longer-term, I think we should move in the direction of having
variety
of standardized messages to display on documents to indicate
their level
of official-ness and final-ness, and put a message on every
single
document and web page that we make visible to the public. I'm
more
concerned about the public finding the TC's outdated versions of
technical proposals for DITA features than about the public
reading SC
documents. Also, a lot of publicly-available content on OASIS's
websites
is simply the ideas of one or more individual TC members and
isn't even
approved by a subcommittee, and that stuff needs disclaimers
most of
all. But all that will require more mulling-over for a later
time. End
of rant for now ;)
For our immediate needs, I think the gist of Bruce's suggestion
is good,
and suggest the following rewordings for clarity:
"This document reflects exploratory work by a subcommittee of
the DITA
Technical Committee and is not endorsed by the DITA Technical
Committee
as a whole. It is not a reliable guide as to the future
direction of
DITA, and should not be taken as guidance for using DITA or for
developing DITA tools."
W.r.t. Michael's request for guidance on the second issue he
described,
I don't have any thoughts at this time, although I appreciate
the
question.
Cheers,
Su-Laine
Su-Laine Yeo
Solutions Consultant
JustSystems Canada, Inc.
Office: 778-327-6356
XMetaL Community Forums: http://forums.xmetal.com
<http://forums.xmetal.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Boses [mailto:
<mailto:> ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:33 AM
To: Doug Morrison;
Subject: RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming
Doug, I see the point that many entities outside of the DITA TC
provide
guidance. I think the issue here is clarification that
subcommittees do
not issue guidance. Official OASIS Guidance, when it originates
in a
subcommittee, is the result of subcommittee deliverables being
vetted
and incorporated into guidance by the parent committee.
At least this is how I understand it as someone trying to follow
the
rules as a subcommittee co-chair. There are two things we have
been
asked to do:
- place a caveat on our posts indicating their
status as not
approved for implementation (It looks like Bruce's wording
achieves
that).
- refrain from presenting subcommittee work as
an official OASIS
TC position in a public forum (webinar, conference, white paper,
etc)
I still need clarification on the second issue, as my
understanding may
allow more exposure of the subcommittee work than the TC would
like.
Presenting some of the ideas of our subcommittee is the best way
to vet
them with the actual stakeholders in external organizations. We
certainly can pass on that opportunity, but I need to make sure
that is
the TC's intention. It may be that any public presentations we
make will
need to include a disclaimer similar to the one we will place on
posts.
Perhaps, Don, Michael, or others on the TC can clarify if and
how we
handle informing the public on progress and obtaining feedback.
Regards,
Michael Boses
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Morrison [mailto:
<mailto:> ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:07 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming
I think the final sentence "Such guidance is exclusively in the
purview of the DITA Technical Committee" should be dropped -
because it
is not true as it stands, and not necessary.
Regards,
Doug Morrison
Information Architect
http://dita4all.com <http://dita4all.com/>
On 13/10/2010 15:33, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
> In yesterday's call, we talked about subcommittees needing
some kind
of
> cover for creative discussion and brainstorming so that
outside
readers
> of the discussion won't take it as guidance from the TC. The
relevant
> bit from the minutes (as amended to include Seth's name):
>
>> Seth Park: For DITA and composite environments, we came up
with
>> a feature request that was technically not implementable.
>> Is there a `code word' under which to talk in papers and
>> not shut down creativity.
>> MB: A standard disclaimer would be wonderful.
>> Don, MP: Let's pursue that on the alias.
> I imagine two aspects of a disclaimer, its content and its
location.
>
> For example, on the title page or in a footnote on the title
or in a
> note paragraph placed prominently on the first page (to be
decided), a
> subcommittee document might say something like:
>
> This paper reflects exploratory work by a subcommittee of the
DITA
> Technical Committee. It is not a reliable guide as to the
future
> direction of DITA, and should not be taken as guidance for
implementing
> or using DITA. Such guidance is exclusively in the purview of
the DITA
> Technical Committee.
>
> Let the discussion begin!
>
> /B
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in
OASIS at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
<https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
<https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
<https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
<https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php>
