Technical Advisory Board (TAB)

Greetings! Just a heads up on: Transformational Government Framework (TGF) Pattern Language Core Patterns Version 1.0 at http://docs.oasis-open.org/tgf/TGF-PL-Core/v1.0/cos01/TGF-PL-Core-v1.0-cos01.html. I am preparing detailed comments but at first blush, the lack of control language (under RFC 2119) in the body of the proposed standard is troubling. Yes, must, etc., appears in the conformance clause but saying must for a clause that permits any solution, doesn't allow a user to judge between what conforms or doesn't to the proposed standard. For example: 3.        MUST   demonstrate   [3]   Engagement with Stakeholders ; I am not sure what demonstrate means in a conformance clause. Is that something different from a conforming project? Secondly, consider what appears to be normative prose in Engagement with Stakeholders, (I say that because it is bolded, no other reason): Therefore: Put a Collaborative Stakeholder Governance Model in place that ensures that all stakeholders are identified and engaged; and that they buy-in to the transformation program. Create a Stakeholder Engagement Model that ensures that there are adequate Stakeholder Engagement Structures, Stakeholder Engagement Processes and Stakeholder Incentives in place. Have a clear understanding both of the transformational government program as well as how to engage with it, irrespective of stakeholder role – as public service customer, supplier, delivery partner elsewhere in the public, private and voluntary sector, politician, the media, etc. Develop a comprehensive stakeholder map, coupled   with the structures, processes and incentives needed to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the program, plus effective stakeholder action in support of it. Model the stakeholders, actors and systems that comprise the overall service ecosystem and their relationships to each other. Maintain and update the stakeholder model on a regular basis. v   v   v There is no single, correct model for doing this successfully, but any conformant TGF program needs to make sure that it defines its own Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement Model which explicitly articulates all of these elements: map all stakeholders, coupled with the structures, processes and incentives needed to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the program, plus effective stakeholder action in support of it. There are no definitions of the key terms for section 3 such as collaborative stakeholder governance model, public service customer, stakeholders, etc. And not the statement: There is no single, correct model for doing this.... That may well be true but if it is the case, then how do I distinguish, based on this proposed standard, between a model that conforms to this specification and one that does not. One of the primary reason for a conformance clause is to distinguish proposals that conform from those that do not. In a manner that reaches a common result for all users who put it to the test. As I said, I am working up a full set of comments but wanted to alert other TAB members of the serious questions concerning the conformance clause in this particular instance. Contrast that with the TGF-primer, where conformance could be defined as use of the terms as defined in the TGF-primer and tested by any interested user. There you would have the term and its definition for comparison against any document that claimed to conform to it. Hope everyone is having a great week! Patrick PS: I would note that standards cannot rely on definitions in non-normative documents to define terms for the standard. See Section 1.8. The terms are by definition, non-normative. -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau

Solid feedback. Thanks for taking the time to go over it.  /chet On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Patrick Durusau < patrick@durusau.net > wrote: Greetings! Just a heads up on: Transformational Government Framework (TGF) Pattern Language Core Patterns Version 1.0 at http://docs.oasis-open.org/tgf/TGF-PL-Core/v1.0/cos01/TGF-PL-Core-v1.0-cos01.html. I am preparing detailed comments but at first blush, the lack of control language (under RFC 2119) in the body of the proposed standard is troubling. Yes, must, etc., appears in the conformance clause but saying "must" for a clause that permits any solution, doesn't allow a user to judge between what conforms or doesn't to the proposed standard. For example: 3.        MUST   demonstrate   [3]   Engagement with Stakeholders ; I am not sure what "demonstrate" means in a conformance clause. Is that something different from a conforming project? Secondly, consider what appears to be normative prose in "Engagement with Stakeholders," (I say that because it is bolded, no other reason): Therefore: Put a Collaborative Stakeholder Governance Model in place that ensures that all stakeholders are identified and engaged; and that they buy-in to the transformation program. Create a Stakeholder Engagement Model that ensures that there are adequate Stakeholder Engagement Structures, Stakeholder Engagement Processes and Stakeholder Incentives in place. Have a clear understanding both of the transformational government program as well as how to engage with it, irrespective of stakeholder role – as public service customer, supplier, delivery partner elsewhere in the public, private and voluntary sector, politician, the media, etc. Develop a comprehensive stakeholder map, coupled   with the structures, processes and incentives needed to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the program, plus effective stakeholder action in support of it. Model the stakeholders, actors and systems that comprise the overall service ecosystem and their relationships to each other. Maintain and update the stakeholder model on a regular basis. v   v   v There is no single, correct model for doing this successfully, but any conformant TGF program needs to make sure that it defines its own Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement Model which explicitly articulates all of these elements: map all stakeholders, coupled with the structures, processes and incentives needed to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the program, plus effective stakeholder action in support of it. There are no definitions of the key terms for section 3 such as "collaborative stakeholder governance model," "public service customer," "stakeholders," etc. And not the statement: "There is no single, correct model for doing this...." That may well be true but if it is the case, then how do I distinguish, based on this proposed "standard," between a model that conforms to this specification and one that does not. One of the primary reason for a conformance clause is to distinguish proposals that conform from those that do not. In a manner that reaches a common result for all users who put it to the test. As I said, I am working up a full set of comments but wanted to alert other TAB members of the serious questions concerning the conformance clause in this particular instance. Contrast that with the TGF-primer, where conformance could be defined as "use of the terms as defined in the TGF-primer" and tested by any interested user. There you would have the term and its definition for comparison against any document that claimed to conform to it. Hope everyone is having a great week! Patrick PS: I would note that standards cannot rely on definitions in non-normative documents to define terms for the standard. See Section 1.8. The terms are by definition, non-normative. -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Former Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau -- /chet  ---------------- Chet Ensign Director of Standards Development and TC Administration  OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393  Check your work using the Support Request Submission Checklist at  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/47248/tc-admin-submission-checklist.html   TC Administration information and support is available at http://www.oasis-open.org/resources/tcadmin Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn:     http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter:         http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook:   http://facebook.com/oasis.open