OASIS Virtual I/O Device (VIRTIO) TC

Hello! After much consideration, I'm seriously thinking about creating an groups.io mailing list for the virtio TC feedback. The main issue I'm trying to address is the subscriber-only nature of the list which is a big problem for casual commenters: when one sends email to the list, message is bounced back. One has to subscribe and resend. groups.io seems to handle this in a more reasonable way. But API access with things like tags allowing better automation with e.g. the voting process would also be welcome. -- MST

Hi Michael,  I'd like to know more about the appeal of groups.io . I'm not sure what it offers that leads you to want to do this but I'd certainly like to find out how it might be of use.  However, I must warn you all - Jamie is cc'ed and can provide more background - that soliciting feedback to the TC from a non-OASIS-approved channel like groups.io would violate the OASIS TC Process rules and quite possibly put your deliverables at risk. I understand that the subscribe requirement of virtio-comment@ is off-putting. We have heard the objection before. However, it is by the act of subscribing that your commenters contributions are bound to the TC's IPR mode and the OASIS copyright. By replying to the confirmation message, they make that commitment. By taking in feedback through a side-channel, you leave yourselves open to later claims against the work.  This is not hypothetical. While uncommon, we've had several incidents where TCs skirted these rules and OASIS received outside claims asserted against their work products. In one I was directly involved with, we had to take a work product down.  If you want a less top-heavy way for non-material feedback - typos or observations on how clear some text may be - the TC GitHub is certainly an option. You can offer people the option to open issues or add comments to issues there; that is one of its expected uses.  And again, we are happy to talk about the features of groups.io that are appealing. On a quick scan, it does look like there are features there that I personally would find attractive.  Let me know if you'd like to further discuss.  Also, thanks for checking first. I really appreciate that.  Best,   /chet On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin < mst@redhat.com > wrote: Hello! After much consideration, I'm seriously thinking about creating an groups.io mailing list for the virtio TC feedback. The main issue I'm trying to address is the subscriber-only nature of the list which is a big problem for casual commenters: when one sends email to the list, message is bounced back. One has to subscribe and resend. groups.io seems to handle this in a more reasonable way. But API access with things like tags allowing better automation with e.g. the voting process would also be welcome. -- MST -- /chet  ---------------- Looking forward to  Borderless Cyber 2018 ,  3-5 Oct , Washington, D.C. Organized by The World Bank, OASIS, and Georgetown University Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 05:50:15PM -0400, Chet Ensign wrote: > Hi Michael,  > > I'd like to know more about the appeal of groups.io. I'm not sure what it > offers that leads you to want to do this but I'd certainly like to find out how > it might be of use.  > > However, I must warn you all - Jamie is cc'ed and can provide more background - > that soliciting feedback to the TC from a non-OASIS-approved channel like > groups.io would violate the OASIS TC Process rules Do you mean this one: Each TC shall be provided with a public comment facility, the purpose of which is to receive comments from the public and is not for general discussion. Comments shall be publicly archived and must be considered by the TC.. TCs are not required to respond to comments. Comments to the TC made by non-TC Members, including from the public, must be made via the TC's comment facility, and shall not be accepted via any other means. so the idea is we'd designate the specific list as our public comment facility then. Right now our facility consists of: virtio-comment virtio-dev virtio (members only) as well as the virtio-comment web form We'd make the facility include a groups.io list then. It's publically archived, hard to see what's wrong with it assuming we make people agree to IPR rules when they comment. > and quite possibly put your > deliverables at risk. I understand that the subscribe requirement of > virtio-comment@ is off-putting. We have heard the objection before. However, it > is by the act of subscribing that your commenters contributions are bound to > the TC's IPR mode and the OASIS copyright. Right, I know that. > By replying to the confirmation > message, they make that commitment. By taking in feedback through a > side-channel, you leave yourselves open to later claims against the work.  The way I see it, we can make messages from non-subscribers moderated. Moderator can then ask contributor to agree to the IPR rules before approving - there appears to be some facility for that. Maybe down the road this part can be automated. > This is not hypothetical. While uncommon, we've had several incidents where TCs > skirted these rules and OASIS received outside claims asserted against their > work products. In one I was directly involved with, we had to take a work > product down.  > > If you want a less top-heavy way for non-material feedback - typos or > observations on how clear some text may be - the TC GitHub is certainly an > option. You can offer people the option to open issues or add comments to > issues there; that is one of its expected uses.  Unfortunately typos isn't the big issue. The issue is ability to CC a virtio list on technical discussions that take place on other forums, such as hypervisor or emulator lists. > And again, we are happy to talk about the features of groups.io that are > appealing. On a quick scan, it does look like there are features there that I > personally would find attractive.  An ideal contribution flow would be for contributor to send mail to list and to get back a link to agree to IPR rules, contributor clicks it, contribution gets forwarded. I don't think such a feature is there, but groups.io looks like they are actually being maintained, so maybe they'll add it. > > Let me know if you'd like to further discuss.  > > Also, thanks for checking first. I really appreciate that.  > > Best,   > > /chet The flexible moderation is mostly what I was looking at, but a working search is also a big plus: right now finding a message in an archive is a manual process. Archiving of attachments is also nice since some people edit the PDF and send comments this way. > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello! > After much consideration, I'm seriously thinking about creating > an groups.io mailing list for the virtio TC feedback. > > The main issue I'm trying to address is the subscriber-only nature of > the list which is a big problem for casual commenters: when one sends > email to the list, message is bounced back. One has to subscribe > and resend. > > groups.io seems to handle this in a more reasonable way. > > But API access with things like tags allowing better automation > with e.g. the voting process would also be welcome. > > -- > MST > > > > > -- > > /chet  > ---------------- > > Looking forward to Borderless Cyber 2018, 3-5 Oct, Washington, D.C. > Organized by The World Bank, OASIS, and Georgetown University > > Chet Ensign > Chief Technical Community Steward > OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society > http://www.oasis-open.org > > Primary: +1 973-996-2298 > Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

Michael, more details below...  On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin < mst@redhat.com > wrote: Do you mean this one:         Each TC shall be provided with a public comment facility, the purpose of         which is to receive comments from the public and is not for general         discussion. Comments shall be publicly archived and must be considered         by the TC.. TCs are not required to respond to comments. Comments to the         TC made by non-TC Members, including from the public, must be made via         the TC's comment facility, and shall not be accepted via any other         means. No. The specific rules I'm referring to are:  ttps:// www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/oasis-committee-operations-process-2017-11-03#visibility-mailingLists :  "Each committee shall be provided upon formation with ... a means to collect public comments. ... The purpose of the committee's public comment facility is to receive comments from the public."  and  https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2017-05-26#publicReview :  "Comments from non-TC Members must be collected via the TC's archived public comment facility; comments made through any other means shall not be accepted." OASIS designates and provides the comment facility; it is not a choice of a TC. Please keep in mind that we have to regulate, oversee, and protect the interests of 60+ technical communities. We cannot allow individual TCs to start inventing their own new ways of doing things without making it difficult or impossible for us to vouch for their work. The standing of OASIS output - the IPR commitments and protections, the acceptance of OASIS standards by the broader community, ANSI accreditation, ISO PAS submitter status, and more - is based on review and approval of our rules and our commitment to uphold them. We have to change how we support those rules with care and apply any mechanisms we approve across the board. Especially anywhere IPR questions are involved.  as well as the virtio-comment web form I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean  https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=virtio ?   Unfortunately typos isn't the big issue. The issue is ability to CC a virtio list on technical discussions that take place on other forums, such as hypervisor or emulator lists. 'CC a list on technical discussions on other forums' - well, technical proposals are precisely the kind of input that we have to make sure is covered. Having the TC use someone's input on another list without explicitly ensuring that they are aware they are making a covered contribution to the VIRTIO TC leaves the TC in a vulnerable position.  An ideal contribution flow would be for contributor to send mail to list and to get back a link to agree to IPR rules, contributor clicks it, contribution gets forwarded. Ok, I see that it is more attractive than having to subscribe first. This is something we can look into.    The flexible moderation is mostly what I was looking at, but a working search is also a big plus: right now finding a message in an archive is a manual process. Archiving of attachments is also nice since some people edit the PDF and send comments this way. Yes, I agree that search is a problem with our current configuration. I expect that our upgrades coming later this year will address that problem.  Let me discuss with Scott and Jamie and see if we can do anything in our current set up.  /chet > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin < mst@redhat.com > wrote: > >     Hello! >     After much consideration, I'm seriously thinking about creating >     an groups.io mailing list for the virtio TC feedback. > >     The main issue I'm trying to address is the subscriber-only nature of >     the list which is a big problem for casual commenters: when one sends >     email to the list, message is bounced back. One has to subscribe >     and resend. > >      groups.io seems to handle this in a more reasonable way. > >     But API access with things like tags allowing better automation >     with e.g. the voting process would also be welcome. >    >     -- >     MST > > > > > -- > > /chet  > ---------------- > > Looking forward to Borderless Cyber 2018, 3-5 Oct, Washington, D.C. > Organized by The World Bank, OASIS, and Georgetown University > > Chet Ensign > Chief Technical Community Steward > OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society > http://www.oasis-open.org > > Primary: +1 973-996-2298 > Mobile: +1 201-341-1393  -- /chet  ---------------- Looking forward to  Borderless Cyber 2018 ,  3-5 Oct , Washington, D.C. Organized by The World Bank, OASIS, and Georgetown University Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 10:19:36AM -0400, Chet Ensign wrote: > Michael, more details below...  > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote: > > Do you mean this one: > >         Each TC shall be provided with a public comment facility, the > purpose of >         which is to receive comments from the public and is not for general >         discussion. Comments shall be publicly archived and must be > considered >         by the TC.. TCs are not required to respond to comments. Comments > to the >         TC made by non-TC Members, including from the public, must be made > via >         the TC's comment facility, and shall not be accepted via any other >         means. > > > No. The specific rules I'm referring to are:  > > ttps://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/ > oasis-committee-operations-process-2017-11-03#visibility-mailingLists:  "Each > committee shall be provided upon formation with ... a means to collect public > comments. ... The purpose of the committee's public comment facility is to > receive comments from the public."  > > and  > > https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2017-05-26# > publicReview:  "Comments from non-TC Members must be collected via the TC's > archived public comment facility; comments made through any other means shall > not be accepted." > > OASIS designates and provides the comment facility; it is not a choice of a TC. > Please keep in mind that we have to regulate, oversee, and protect the > interests of 60+ technical communities. We cannot allow individual TCs to start > inventing their own new ways of doing things without making it difficult or > impossible for us to vouch for their work. The standing of OASIS output - the > IPR commitments and protections, the acceptance of OASIS standards by the > broader community, ANSI accreditation, ISO PAS submitter status, and more - is > based on review and approval of our rules and our commitment to uphold them. We > have to change how we support those rules with care and apply any mechanisms we > approve across the board. Especially anywhere IPR questions are involved.  > > > as well as the virtio-comment web form > > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean  https://www.oasis-open.org/ > committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=virtio ? Hmm I guess I'm confused. I thought there's a web form where one can agree to the IPR and post without going through mail. Not sure why I thought so, sorry about the noise. > > Unfortunately typos isn't the big issue. The issue is ability to CC a > virtio list on technical discussions that take place on other forums, > such as hypervisor or emulator lists. > > > 'CC a list on technical discussions on other forums' - well, technical > proposals are precisely the kind of input that we have to make sure is covered. > Having the TC use someone's input on another list without explicitly ensuring > that they are aware they are making a covered contribution to the VIRTIO TC > leaves the TC in a vulnerable position.  Well we don't live in a vacuum. Since we are too agressive people just go discuss virtio on other lists, and some TC members are subscribed to these. I know I am. One problem that happens a lot is that a member would mail a TC mailing list and copy an external mailing list. A person not subscribed to the TC one gets a copy through the external list and does reply all. That person's reply gets dropped to the floor with a request to subscribe *but the member gets a copy anyway*. So dropping email isn't very effective in protecting the TC from being in a vulnerable position. To improve the sitation we really should make as much effort as possible to have people agree to the IPR. Current mechanism assumes instead it's mostly poster's problem. > An ideal contribution flow would be for contributor to send mail to list > and to get back a link to agree to IPR rules, contributor clicks it, > contribution gets forwarded. > > Ok, I see that it is more attractive than having to subscribe first. That's somewhat of an understatement. I attempted to set virtio-dev as the official mailing list for virtio linux driver development and linux developers requested its removal because of the subscriber-only policy. But we definitely do want input from driver developers as they are the main users of the spec. Another problem is automated email by tools. No IPR in their output but these often use no-rely addresses that can't subscribe to the list. Yes another problem is archiving of the the members-only list. Multiple public archives external to OASIS can only be a good thing, but one normally needs to subscribe the archiver and that does not work for the members-only list. > This is > something we can look into.  Since I'm in a wish-on-a-star mood today, also hopefully - it's possible to just reply "yes" to "the agree to IPR?" email (instead of clicking) - posted is then white-listed for future posts > The flexible moderation is mostly what I was looking at, but a working > search is also a big plus: right now finding a message in an archive is > a manual process. Archiving of attachments is also nice since some > people edit the PDF and send comments this way. > > > Yes, I agree that search is a problem with our current configuration. I expect > that our upgrades coming later this year will address that problem.  BTW ability to download the archive is also nice to have. > Let me discuss with Scott and Jamie and see if we can do anything in our > current set up.  > > /chet > > > > > > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > >     Hello! > >     After much consideration, I'm seriously thinking about creating > >     an groups.io mailing list for the virtio TC feedback. > > > >     The main issue I'm trying to address is the subscriber-only nature of > >     the list which is a big problem for casual commenters: when one sends > >     email to the list, message is bounced back. One has to subscribe > >     and resend. > > > >     groups.io seems to handle this in a more reasonable way. > > > >     But API access with things like tags allowing better automation > >     with e.g. the voting process would also be welcome. > >    > >     -- > >     MST > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > /chet  > > ---------------- > > > > Looking forward to Borderless Cyber 2018, 3-5 Oct, Washington, D.C. > > Organized by The World Bank, OASIS, and Georgetown University > > > > Chet Ensign > > Chief Technical Community Steward > > OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society > > http://www.oasis-open.org > > > > Primary: +1 973-996-2298 > > Mobile: +1 201-341-1393  > > > > > -- > > /chet  > ---------------- > > Looking forward to Borderless Cyber 2018, 3-5 Oct, Washington, D.C. > Organized by The World Bank, OASIS, and Georgetown University > > Chet Ensign > Chief Technical Community Steward > OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society > http://www.oasis-open.org > > Primary: +1 973-996-2298 > Mobile: +1 201-341-1393 

Michael, I'm adding this comment simply to acknowledge that the current solution supported by OASIS for the comment facility default (virtio-comment@ ) is not ideal. I'll coordinate my opinions and recommendations as warranted to see whether we have good options, and if so, which ones. Shalom (Shabbat shalom in about 20 hours) - Robin PS  Chet noted that we are aware of some of the limitations, and we hear _expression_ of frustrations from time-to-time.   On a regular basis, I face the issue of mail server messages (confirmation request messages to users) being  routed to a user's spam folder, of to other location-unobserved, and the process breaks down.  We know that "ezmlm" and the Kavi-supported variant are ...uh.... er... um... hrmmmm... mumble... " outdated". I don't know if groups.io is better, but in being more modern than ezmlm, I'd bet on the odds.  I'm subscribed to about 8 groups.io lists, but have not paid attention to the details. On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Chet Ensign < chet.ensign@oasis-open.org > wrote: Hi Michael,  I'd like to know more about the appeal of groups.io . I'm not sure what it offers that leads you to want to do this but I'd certainly like to find out how it might be of use.  However, I must warn you all - Jamie is cc'ed and can provide more background - that soliciting feedback to the TC from a non-OASIS-approved channel like groups.io would violate the OASIS TC Process rules and quite possibly put your deliverables at risk. I understand that the subscribe requirement of virtio-comment@ is off-putting. We have heard the objection before. However, it is by the act of subscribing that your commenters contributions are bound to the TC's IPR mode and the OASIS copyright. By replying to the confirmation message, they make that commitment. By taking in feedback through a side-channel, you leave yourselves open to later claims against the work.  This is not hypothetical. While uncommon, we've had several incidents where TCs skirted these rules and OASIS received outside claims asserted against their work products. In one I was directly involved with, we had to take a work product down.  If you want a less top-heavy way for non-material feedback - typos or observations on how clear some text may be - the TC GitHub is certainly an option. You can offer people the option to open issues or add comments to issues there; that is one of its expected uses.  And again, we are happy to talk about the features of groups.io that are appealing. On a quick scan, it does look like there are features there that I personally would find attractive.  Let me know if you'd like to further discuss.  Also, thanks for checking first. I really appreciate that.  Best,   /chet On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin < mst@redhat.com > wrote: Hello! After much consideration, I'm seriously thinking about creating an groups.io mailing list for the virtio TC feedback. The main issue I'm trying to address is the subscriber-only nature of the list which is a big problem for casual commenters: when one sends email to the list, message is bounced back. One has to subscribe and resend. groups.io seems to handle this in a more reasonable way. But API access with things like tags allowing better automation with e.g. the voting process would also be welcome. -- MST -- /chet  ---------------- Looking forward to  Borderless Cyber 2018 ,  3-5 Oct , Washington, D.C. Organized by The World Bank, OASIS, and Georgetown University Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Primary: +1 973-996-2298 Mobile: +1 201-341-1393  -- Robin Cover OASIS, Director of Information Services Editor, Cover Pages and XML Daily Newslink Email: robin@oasis-open.org Staff bio: http://www.oasis-open.org/people/staff/robin-cover Cover Pages: http://xml.coverpages.org/ Newsletter: http://xml.coverpages.org/newsletterArchive.html Tel: +1 972-296-1783