OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

rubric for SC brainstorming

  • 1.  rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-13-2010 14:34 
    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


  • 2.  Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-13-2010 15:08 
      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


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
>
>
>


  • 3.  RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-13-2010 15:34 
    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


  • 4.  RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-19-2010 21:42 
    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 
syeo@justsystems.com

XMetaL Community Forums: http://forums.xmetal.com




    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 5.  RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-20-2010 14:02 

    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
    
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    
    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


    

    

    
From:
"Su-Laine Yeo" <su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com>

    
To:
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

    
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
    
syeo@justsystems.com

    
XMetaL Community Forums:     http://forums.xmetal.com



    

    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
    
                                                    mailto:mboses@QUARK.com]
    
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:33 AM
    
To: Doug Morrison; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
    
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:dmorrison@dita4all.com]
    
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:07 AM
    
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
    
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


    
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
    
>
    
>
    
>

    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
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


    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
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


    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
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



  • 6.  RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-20-2010 16:24 
    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:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:01 AM
	To: Su-Laine Yeo
	Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
	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 
	mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
	http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


  • 7.  Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-20-2010 18:41 
    Hello all,

After listening / reading quietly for over a year, here's my first 2  
cents, about the disclaimer discussion:

Being a minimalist at heart, I would use fewer words and rephrase the  
disclaimer as follows:

"This document reflects exploratory work. It is not a reliable guide  
on the future direction of DITA. It should not be taken as guidance  
for using DITA or for developing DITA tools."

The fact that it is work by a subcommittee is irrelevant, as  
exploratory papers may also be produced by the TC as a whole, right ?  
So leaving out the reference to the subcommittee makes the statement  
useful for any exploratory document that might emerge out of the DITA  
TC community. Also, the fact that it is not endorsed or approved by  
the TC is irrelevant, as that is not the nature of exploratory  
documents. They are meant to be input for discussions, not proposals  
to be approved. Each document will have some reference to the  
authorship, which may be an individual TC or SC member or an SC or  
even the TC as a whole. It can still be exploratory, and should not be  
taken as definitive. That is all we're trying to state. So leave out  
all the redundant and irrelevant information.

Jang F.M. Graat
Travelling philosopher
www.jang.nl


On 20 okt 2010, at 18:23, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:

> 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:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
> 	Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:01 AM
> 	To: Su-Laine Yeo
> 	Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> 	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
> 	mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
> 	http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


  • 8.  Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-20-2010 18:57 
      Jang, you have eloquently expressed the unease I felt about the course 
of the discussion. I like your minimalist approach--it says what it 
needs to say while leaving the responsibility for how the information is 
used up to the user without discouraging their interest in the potential 
of the exploratory work. I endorse this approach. I might suggest only 
the consideration of adding a word that adds a bit of length to the 
leash: "It is not *necessarily* a reliable guide..."
--
Don Day
Chair, OASIS DITA TC


On 10/20/2010 1:40 PM, Jang F.M. Graat wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> After listening / reading quietly for over a year, here's my first 2 
> cents, about the disclaimer discussion:
>
> Being a minimalist at heart, I would use fewer words and rephrase the 
> disclaimer as follows:
>
> "This document reflects exploratory work. It is not a reliable guide 
> on the future direction of DITA. It should not be taken as guidance 
> for using DITA or for developing DITA tools."
>
> The fact that it is work by a subcommittee is irrelevant, as 
> exploratory papers may also be produced by the TC as a whole, right ? 
> So leaving out the reference to the subcommittee makes the statement 
> useful for any exploratory document that might emerge out of the DITA 
> TC community. Also, the fact that it is not endorsed or approved by 
> the TC is irrelevant, as that is not the nature of exploratory 
> documents. They are meant to be input for discussions, not proposals 
> to be approved. Each document will have some reference to the 
> authorship, which may be an individual TC or SC member or an SC or 
> even the TC as a whole. It can still be exploratory, and should not be 
> taken as definitive. That is all we're trying to state. So leave out 
> all the redundant and irrelevant information.
>
> Jang F.M. Graat
> Travelling philosopher
> www.jang.nl
>
>
> On 20 okt 2010, at 18:23, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
>
>> 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:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
>>     Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:01 AM
>>     To: Su-Laine Yeo
>>     Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
>>     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
>>     mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
>>     http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


  • 9.  RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-20-2010 19:03 
    Works for me. Excellent editing, Jang :)

Su-Laine



    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 10.  Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-21-2010 03:05 
    Hello Don,

Adding the word "necessarily" actually makes people feel it IS some  
sort of guidance. Stating something is not a reliable guide does not  
state is is NOT the direction DITA will be moving in, nor does it  
state that it IS. It simply states that people should not build their  
future on the info in the document, and that seems to be exactly what  
we're trying to express in that particular disclaimer. So I would not  
add "necessarily".

Jang F.M. Graat
Traveling philosopher
http://www.jang.nl

On 20 okt 2010, at 20:56, Don Day (LbW) wrote:

> Jang, you have eloquently expressed the unease I felt about the  
> course of the discussion. I like your minimalist approach--it says  
> what it needs to say while leaving the responsibility for how the  
> information is used up to the user without discouraging their  
> interest in the potential of the exploratory work. I endorse this  
> approach. I might suggest only the consideration of adding a word  
> that adds a bit of length to the leash: "It is not *necessarily* a  
> reliable guide..."
> --
> Don Day
> Chair, OASIS DITA TC
>
>
> On 10/20/2010 1:40 PM, Jang F.M. Graat wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> After listening / reading quietly for over a year, here's my first  
>> 2 cents, about the disclaimer discussion:
>>
>> Being a minimalist at heart, I would use fewer words and rephrase  
>> the disclaimer as follows:
>>
>> "This document reflects exploratory work. It is not a reliable  
>> guide on the future direction of DITA. It should not be taken as  
>> guidance for using DITA or for developing DITA tools."
>>
>> The fact that it is work by a subcommittee is irrelevant, as  
>> exploratory papers may also be produced by the TC as a whole,  
>> right ? So leaving out the reference to the subcommittee makes the  
>> statement useful for any exploratory document that might emerge out  
>> of the DITA TC community. Also, the fact that it is not endorsed or  
>> approved by the TC is irrelevant, as that is not the nature of  
>> exploratory documents. They are meant to be input for discussions,  
>> not proposals to be approved. Each document will have some  
>> reference to the authorship, which may be an individual TC or SC  
>> member or an SC or even the TC as a whole. It can still be  
>> exploratory, and should not be taken as definitive. That is all  
>> we're trying to state. So leave out all the redundant and  
>> irrelevant information.
>>
>> Jang F.M. Graat
>> Travelling philosopher
>> www.jang.nl
>>
>>
>> On 20 okt 2010, at 18:23, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
>>
>>> 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:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
>>>    Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:01 AM
>>>    To: Su-Laine Yeo
>>>    Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>    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
>>>    mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
>>>    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


  • 11.  Re: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-21-2010 04:48 
      I agree completely with you. Strike my suggestion, and count me as 
fully behind the original wording.
--
Don

On 10/20/2010 10:04 PM, Jang F.M. Graat wrote:
> Hello Don,
>
> Adding the word "necessarily" actually makes people feel it IS some 
> sort of guidance. Stating something is not a reliable guide does not 
> state is is NOT the direction DITA will be moving in, nor does it 
> state that it IS. It simply states that people should not build their 
> future on the info in the document, and that seems to be exactly what 
> we're trying to express in that particular disclaimer. So I would not 
> add "necessarily".
>
> Jang F.M. Graat
> Traveling philosopher
> http://www.jang.nl
>
> On 20 okt 2010, at 20:56, Don Day (LbW) wrote:
>
>> Jang, you have eloquently expressed the unease I felt about the 
>> course of the discussion. I like your minimalist approach--it says 
>> what it needs to say while leaving the responsibility for how the 
>> information is used up to the user without discouraging their 
>> interest in the potential of the exploratory work. I endorse this 
>> approach. I might suggest only the consideration of adding a word 
>> that adds a bit of length to the leash: "It is not *necessarily* a 
>> reliable guide..."
>> -- 
>> Don Day
>> Chair, OASIS DITA TC
>>
>>
>> On 10/20/2010 1:40 PM, Jang F.M. Graat wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> After listening / reading quietly for over a year, here's my first 2 
>>> cents, about the disclaimer discussion:
>>>
>>> Being a minimalist at heart, I would use fewer words and rephrase 
>>> the disclaimer as follows:
>>>
>>> "This document reflects exploratory work. It is not a reliable guide 
>>> on the future direction of DITA. It should not be taken as guidance 
>>> for using DITA or for developing DITA tools."
>>>
>>> The fact that it is work by a subcommittee is irrelevant, as 
>>> exploratory papers may also be produced by the TC as a whole, right 
>>> ? So leaving out the reference to the subcommittee makes the 
>>> statement useful for any exploratory document that might emerge out 
>>> of the DITA TC community. Also, the fact that it is not endorsed or 
>>> approved by the TC is irrelevant, as that is not the nature of 
>>> exploratory documents. They are meant to be input for discussions, 
>>> not proposals to be approved. Each document will have some reference 
>>> to the authorship, which may be an individual TC or SC member or an 
>>> SC or even the TC as a whole. It can still be exploratory, and 
>>> should not be taken as definitive. That is all we're trying to 
>>> state. So leave out all the redundant and irrelevant information.
>>>
>>> Jang F.M. Graat
>>> Travelling philosopher
>>> www.jang.nl
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 okt 2010, at 18:23, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
>>>>    Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:01 AM
>>>>    To: Su-Laine Yeo
>>>>    Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>>    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
>>>>    mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
>>>>    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


  • 12.  RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-20-2010 19:02 
    I like it. 

> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


  • 13.  RE: [dita] rubric for SC brainstorming

    Posted 10-20-2010 19:07 
    











    


    Thank you for this confirmation, Michael. We will always be
presenting the subcommittee content as exploratory in nature for feedback.
    


    


    I agree with Don and Bruce that the new wording provided by Jang
seems very good, but of course we would be comfortable with whatever wording is
decided on by the TC.
    


    


    Regards,
    


    


    Michael 
    


    


    


    


    


    From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
    
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:01 AM
    
To: Su-Laine Yeo
    
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
    
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
    
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    
    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

    

    


    
 
    
  
  
    From: 
    
      		
  
  
    "Su-Laine
  Yeo" <su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com> 
    
      		
 
    
 
    
  
  
    To: 
    
      		
  
  
    <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
  
    
      		
 
    
 
    
  
  
    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 
    
syeo@justsystems.com

    
XMetaL Community Forums:     http://forums.xmetal.com



    

    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
    
                                                
    
From: Michael Boses [mailto:mboses@QUARK.com] 
    
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:33 AM
    
To: Doug Morrison; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
    
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:dmorrison@dita4all.com] 
    
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:07 AM
    
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
    
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


    
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
    
>
    
>
    
>

    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 


    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
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 


    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
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


Related Content