OASIS Emergency Management TC

You make some good points Sukumar,

Sorry for the length of these emails. You may have missed the TC 
meeting(s) when I raised the topic of responding to the NIMS SC 
issues. When I get some time to check for it, I will send along the 
url for the meeting notes, but it was discussed in the TC.

My point with regard to the spreadsheet is that it is not something 
we have done before. I think that it is just easier to keep this new 
process clearly distinct from the previous process of tracking 
comments for the Public Reviews if these post-approval issues are 
separated.

We always have the previous Issues Lists to refer to, but once the 
post-approval comments are included, it becomes difficult for anyone 
who is not familiar with the history to understand how the issues or 
comments relate to the TC process, and that is not evident simply 
from the date. Let's remember that we keep these records for public 
transparency as much as for our own reference, and I think this 
practice just makes easier to get confused. As far as that goes, I've 
done similar things, like using a second worksheet to track meeting 
attendance and dating responses to use the spreadsheet for the 
purpose of recording meeting notes. As I understand the TC process, 
we are allowed such freedom in SCs.

I agree, putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is definitely 
non-trivial, and I thank you for that. In fact, the time and effort 
of doing that is the reason why I didn't do that myself. I preferred 
to review the submitted documents from NIMS SC at least once to get 
an idea of what process is most appropriate and form a recommendation 
to the TC, while keeping track of our discussions in our meeting 
notes.

Of course, now that these issues are in speadsheet form, there is no 
reason not to use it to keep track of our discussions, after we have 
discussed how best to conduct even this initial review in the TC.

There's actually an issue in here for the TC to consider beyond this 
specific instance. Most of our specifications deal with messaging, 
which is specifically part of the Messages and Notification SC. I 
have several times now suggested having certain tasks, such as 
developing EDXL-HAVE conducted either at the TC level or, with a new 
SC such as the CAP Profiles SC. I have previously suggested that CAP 
Next Gen be undertaken by a new SC. The reason for this has been to 
avoid confusion and to even-out the workload so that one SC is not 
overburdened. I doubt we want to become sticklers about this because 
it is the work that is important, more important than the process. 
However the process needs to be clear and help accomplish the work.

We investigated standing up task-specific groups, but, if my memory 
serves, OASIS does not support that kind of workgroup at the TC 
level. I think we are free to do that at the SC level, but if we 
don't have enough participation due to the fact that one must join an 
SC in order to participate in a task group, its a moot point.

So we need to discuss how best to conduct the next batch of 
specifications, revisions, Errata, etc.

Cheers,
Rex



At 12:00 AM -0500 3/7/09, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:
>Rex,
>
>Obviously, its a long email to respond...
>
>You are making quite a few assumptions that are not correct. I did 
>not imply that this should not be done in a group nor that 
>everything should be done in a single vote - obviously, that's 
>impractical.
>
>I am not sure I understand the logic of not compiling all the 
>comments first - we have done that as a first step for all the 
>standards and I hope we continue to follow that process.
>
>Finally, just putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is a non 
>trivial issue - my opinion is that it will be easier to have all 
>comments at one place - clearly, you can track everything since they 
>will be related and may have been discussed before. You can easily 
>track issues that were past the approval - the date column should 
>help you with it. And you can filter the column to see the open 
>issues. If you want to create a separate spreadsheet, please do so.
>
>I am happy to discuss - I was not aware that you were discussing it 
>in the SC nor recollect being mentioned in the last TC meeting. As I 
>mentioned in my email, the spreadsheet would be a starting point for 
>the discussions.
>
>Sukumar
>
>
>

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                
                                                
                                            

Hi Sukumar, Everyone,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, but I found the Meeting 
Notes where HAVE and RM were reported to be on the next and future 
EM-Msg SC Agendas: Approved Meeting Notes 1-20-09.doc 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/download.php/31078/Approved%20Meeting%20Notes%201-20-09.doc

Item 4: Other SC reports.
a.Msg/Not.  Rex reports that the next SC meeting will be after the TC 
meeting Feb 3.  The main agenda item will be to discuss HAVE and RM. 
The good work Tim and Camille did at the NIMS-SC identified some 
errors in the Standard.  These do not appear to be substantive and 
should be able to be corrected with an erratum.  This will be the 
focus of the next Msg/Not SC meetings.

The progress of this work is recorded in the EM-MSg SC Meeting Notes 
EM-MSG Draft Meeting Notes 02-10-09 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency-msg/download.php/31160/EM-MSG%20Draft%20Meeting%20Notes%2002-10-09.doc

We have not revisited this work since then due to the necessity of 
dealing with the TC's rejection of our proposed recommendation for 
CAP Next Gen work.

That said, I have no objection to restarting the process using the 
spreadsheet Sukumar posted, especially if he is willing to update and 
maintain the spreadsheet while we go through issues. Since he has 
recommended dispositions, the work should go fairly quickly, though I 
doubt we'll get through the entire set in one meeting. Also, I would 
volunteer to redo the DOM using Enterprise Architect and ensuring 
that legibility is clear an unequivocal.

Elysa, this should be on the TC agenda, along with our revised 
recommendation for CAP Next Gen, which I expect may also need to be 
revisited, though I would dearly appreciate being wrong about that.

Nevertheless, as I will note in a separate post to the EM Msg SC, we 
will be meeting after the TC Meeting. If the TC decides that we can 
take this up in the EM Msg SC, we will discuss this further in that 
meeting.

Cheers,
Rex

At 6:27 AM -0800 3/7/09, Rex Brooks wrote:
>You make some good points Sukumar,
>
>Sorry for the length of these emails. You may have missed the TC 
>meeting(s) when I raised the topic of responding to the NIMS SC 
>issues. When I get some time to check for it, I will send along the 
>url for the meeting notes, but it was discussed in the TC.
>
>My point with regard to the spreadsheet is that it is not something 
>we have done before. I think that it is just easier to keep this new 
>process clearly distinct from the previous process of tracking 
>comments for the Public Reviews if these post-approval issues are 
>separated.
>
>We always have the previous Issues Lists to refer to, but once the 
>post-approval comments are included, it becomes difficult for anyone 
>who is not familiar with the history to understand how the issues or 
>comments relate to the TC process, and that is not evident simply 
>from the date. Let's remember that we keep these records for public 
>transparency as much as for our own reference, and I think this 
>practice just makes easier to get confused. As far as that goes, 
>I've done similar things, like using a second worksheet to track 
>meeting attendance and dating responses to use the spreadsheet for 
>the purpose of recording meeting notes. As I understand the TC 
>process, we are allowed such freedom in SCs.
>
>I agree, putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is definitely 
>non-trivial, and I thank you for that. In fact, the time and effort 
>of doing that is the reason why I didn't do that myself. I preferred 
>to review the submitted documents from NIMS SC at least once to get 
>an idea of what process is most appropriate and form a 
>recommendation to the TC, while keeping track of our discussions in 
>our meeting notes.
>
>Of course, now that these issues are in speadsheet form, there is no 
>reason not to use it to keep track of our discussions, after we have 
>discussed how best to conduct even this initial review in the TC.
>
>There's actually an issue in here for the TC to consider beyond this 
>specific instance. Most of our specifications deal with messaging, 
>which is specifically part of the Messages and Notification SC. I 
>have several times now suggested having certain tasks, such as 
>developing EDXL-HAVE conducted either at the TC level or, with a new 
>SC such as the CAP Profiles SC. I have previously suggested that CAP 
>Next Gen be undertaken by a new SC. The reason for this has been to 
>avoid confusion and to even-out the workload so that one SC is not 
>overburdened. I doubt we want to become sticklers about this because 
>it is the work that is important, more important than the process. 
>However the process needs to be clear and help accomplish the work.
>
>We investigated standing up task-specific groups, but, if my memory 
>serves, OASIS does not support that kind of workgroup at the TC 
>level. I think we are free to do that at the SC level, but if we 
>don't have enough participation due to the fact that one must join 
>an SC in order to participate in a task group, its a moot point.
>
>So we need to discuss how best to conduct the next batch of 
>specifications, revisions, Errata, etc.
>
>Cheers,
>Rex
>
>
>
>At 12:00 AM -0500 3/7/09, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:
>>Rex,
>>
>>Obviously, its a long email to respond...
>>
>>You are making quite a few assumptions that are not correct. I did 
>>not imply that this should not be done in a group nor that 
>>everything should be done in a single vote - obviously, that's 
>>impractical.
>>
>>I am not sure I understand the logic of not compiling all the 
>>comments first - we have done that as a first step for all the 
>>standards and I hope we continue to follow that process.
>>
>>Finally, just putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is a non 
>>trivial issue - my opinion is that it will be easier to have all 
>>comments at one place - clearly, you can track everything since 
>>they will be related and may have been discussed before. You can 
>>easily track issues that were past the approval - the date column 
>>should help you with it. And you can filter the column to see the 
>>open issues. If you want to create a separate spreadsheet, please 
>>do so.
>>
>>I am happy to discuss - I was not aware that you were discussing it 
>>in the SC nor recollect being mentioned in the last TC meeting. As 
>>I mentioned in my email, the spreadsheet would be a starting point 
>>for the discussions.
>>
>>Sukumar
>>
>>
>>

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
>>From: Rex Brooks 

All,

Is there a time frame set for when these issues will be incorporated
into an errata or 1.1 version of the EDXL-HAVE specification. 

How about the EDXL-RM issues list?


Timothy D. Gilmore | SAIC
Test and Evaluation Engineer | ILPSG | NIMS SC | NIMS STEP
phone: 606.274.2063 | fax 606.274.2012
mobile: 606.219.7882 | email: gilmoret@us.saic.com  
 

Please consider the environment before printing this email.




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
From:
emergency-return-1368-timothy.d.gilmore=saic.com@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:emergency-return-1368-timothy.d.gilmore=saic.com@lists.oasis-ope
n.org] On Behalf Of Rex Brooks
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 9:28 AM
To: Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL; rexb@starbourne.com;
emergency@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - EDXL HAVE Comments
(EDXL_HAVE_IssuesList_v4.6.xls) uploaded

You make some good points Sukumar,

Sorry for the length of these emails. You may have missed the TC 
meeting(s) when I raised the topic of responding to the NIMS SC 
issues. When I get some time to check for it, I will send along the 
url for the meeting notes, but it was discussed in the TC.

My point with regard to the spreadsheet is that it is not something 
we have done before. I think that it is just easier to keep this new 
process clearly distinct from the previous process of tracking 
comments for the Public Reviews if these post-approval issues are 
separated.

We always have the previous Issues Lists to refer to, but once the 
post-approval comments are included, it becomes difficult for anyone 
who is not familiar with the history to understand how the issues or 
comments relate to the TC process, and that is not evident simply 
from the date. Let's remember that we keep these records for public 
transparency as much as for our own reference, and I think this 
practice just makes easier to get confused. As far as that goes, I've 
done similar things, like using a second worksheet to track meeting 
attendance and dating responses to use the spreadsheet for the 
purpose of recording meeting notes. As I understand the TC process, 
we are allowed such freedom in SCs.

I agree, putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is definitely 
non-trivial, and I thank you for that. In fact, the time and effort 
of doing that is the reason why I didn't do that myself. I preferred 
to review the submitted documents from NIMS SC at least once to get 
an idea of what process is most appropriate and form a recommendation 
to the TC, while keeping track of our discussions in our meeting 
notes.

Of course, now that these issues are in speadsheet form, there is no 
reason not to use it to keep track of our discussions, after we have 
discussed how best to conduct even this initial review in the TC.

There's actually an issue in here for the TC to consider beyond this 
specific instance. Most of our specifications deal with messaging, 
which is specifically part of the Messages and Notification SC. I 
have several times now suggested having certain tasks, such as 
developing EDXL-HAVE conducted either at the TC level or, with a new 
SC such as the CAP Profiles SC. I have previously suggested that CAP 
Next Gen be undertaken by a new SC. The reason for this has been to 
avoid confusion and to even-out the workload so that one SC is not 
overburdened. I doubt we want to become sticklers about this because 
it is the work that is important, more important than the process. 
However the process needs to be clear and help accomplish the work.

We investigated standing up task-specific groups, but, if my memory 
serves, OASIS does not support that kind of workgroup at the TC 
level. I think we are free to do that at the SC level, but if we 
don't have enough participation due to the fact that one must join an 
SC in order to participate in a task group, its a moot point.

So we need to discuss how best to conduct the next batch of 
specifications, revisions, Errata, etc.

Cheers,
Rex



At 12:00 AM -0500 3/7/09, Dwarkanath, Sukumar - INTL wrote:
>Rex,
>
>Obviously, its a long email to respond...
>
>You are making quite a few assumptions that are not correct. I did 
>not imply that this should not be done in a group nor that 
>everything should be done in a single vote - obviously, that's 
>impractical.
>
>I am not sure I understand the logic of not compiling all the 
>comments first - we have done that as a first step for all the 
>standards and I hope we continue to follow that process.
>
>Finally, just putting all the comments on a spreadsheet is a non 
>trivial issue - my opinion is that it will be easier to have all 
>comments at one place - clearly, you can track everything since they 
>will be related and may have been discussed before. You can easily 
>track issues that were past the approval - the date column should 
>help you with it. And you can filter the column to see the open 
>issues. If you want to create a separate spreadsheet, please do so.
>
>I am happy to discuss - I was not aware that you were discussing it 
>in the SC nor recollect being mentioned in the last TC meeting. As I 
>mentioned in my email, the spreadsheet would be a starting point for 
>the discussions.
>
>Sukumar
>
>
>