Data Provenance (DPS) TC

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

Yes

	Jay White (He/Him) Security Principal Program Manager Azure Office of the CTO OSS Ecosystem

 

 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

Duncan has raised several good procedural and policy questions in his posts.  Regarding the repository (and other issues referenced), I recommend that OASIS staff address them at the April 22 meeting to save the TC time later in case there are misunderstandings about TC process and policies.

In the meantime, I suggest that the TC chair open a ballot for the motion: 

I move to approve the TC chair(s) working with OASIS to set up the DPS TC GitHub repository, which will serve as the official repository for the source files for the written DPS TC specification.

The system will identify TC members who have voting rights, and calculate the necessary quorum, and record the decision.

John

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list? 

Hi All,

I want to jump in to help clear up some procedural confusion.

It is perfectly acceptable to use the email list to bring forward a motion to establish the TC GitHub repo. Kristina's motion contained all of the required parts (TC name, proposed purpose, and maintainers) and a formal ballot is not required. Please see Section 1.11 on Voting of the TC process if you want to know more details.

Your roster currently shows 18 voting members so in order for the original motion to pass you will need 3 more yes votes. 

Please reach out to me if you have any questions,

Kelly

Duncan has raised several good procedural and policy questions in his posts.  Regarding the repository (and other issues referenced), I recommend that OASIS staff address them at the April 22 meeting to save the TC time later in case there are misunderstandings about TC process and policies.

In the meantime, I suggest that the TC chair open a ballot for the motion: 

I move to approve the TC chair(s) working with OASIS to set up the DPS TC GitHub repository, which will serve as the official repository for the source files for the written DPS TC specification.

The system will identify TC members who have voting rights, and calculate the necessary quorum, and record the decision.

John

The charter (btw the official copy is in 'workspace'/'documents) has 4 anticipated contributions in section 2g:

• Standards Executive Briefing
• GitHub repository with technical data provenance standards specifications, code snippets, documentation for standards adoption
• Use cases 
• Metadata generator 

Some of these are 'documents' and easy to contribute by just attaching to an email and sending to this list. I assume that will get done promptly. Even if they eventually will get put elsewhere, like in GitHub, it would be good to have an email so we don't have to wait for next meeting to set up our rules on using GitHub etc.

However some of these are GitHub repos and I assume will need to be contributed as pull requests against one or more GitHub repos we don't have yet, and then approved via some process we don't have a standing rule for yer (eg lazy consensus by emailing this list and if no objections within a week the PR passes. If objections then discuss at meeting, and if necessary hold a ballot or eballot and majority wins).

What is the plan to get one or more GitHub repos set up for the TC? There is a process for doing this in OASIS and I seem to recall there are two types of repos (or 'inside' TC use and for 'open source') that have different purposes, go in different places, and have different rules for who has to approve setting them up as well as  different OASIS processes for getting them set up.

Since the contributors have been in discussion with OASIS, is there a plan for what is going where, and do "we" have to approve anything via lazy consensus on this mail list?