Print

Print


For some reason, the web board stripped off the entire contents of my message.

IAW section 6.10, Appeals, of the SISO P&P, SISO-ADM-002-2011, I am appealing the decision by the SAC on 2 July 2012 toreject the FEAT XML Schema for balloting.

 

Decision or action being appealed

“A motion was made, seconded, and passed that the TAD go to the PDG stating that what has been submitted is incomplete. The interface, the Standard, that appears on the SISO webpage as a standard, needs to be provided IAW the current Style Guide.”

 

Why the decision or action is in question

The product nomination (PN) approved in June 2010 by the SAC for the FEAT Schema clearly states, “The proposed PDG will develop an XML schema designed to record all federation agreements determined to be of use to federation developers and participants.” The term “XML schema” appears in the PN 7 times. No other products are described.

 

The BPDSP, SISO-ADM-003-2011, section 4.1.5, The Role of the SAC with Regard to the PN, lists the following items:

·      Make suggestions to the proposing group to bring the PN into compliance with SISO Goals.

·      Ensure that proposed products will meet the intent of the PN and that they are viable for a majority of the SISO community.

If the SAC was not prepared to accept an XML schema as a SISO standard, changes should have been made to the PN before it was approved. At no point during the open development of this standard did the SAC express any concern with the product being developed.

 

The PN is a contract between the SAC and the PDG. Allowing the SAC to change the terms of that contract ex post facto means that no PDG can ever be assured that they can successfully complete their work because the PN is only binding on them, not on the SAC.

 

What effect the decision has had on the appellant

Section 1.2, Scope, of the current style guide, http://www.sisostds.org/DigitalLibrary.aspx?Command=Core_Download&EntryId0769,

expressly excludes XML documents, “The following are specifically excluded from the scope of this document – Machine readable document; e.g., xml and xsd formatted documents.” SISO has no style guide for XML schemas and previous attempts to produce one were not completed. Therefore, the FEAT schema is already compliant with the style guide.

 

However, previous direction from the SAC indicates that some SAC members will only accept a Word or pdf document, despite the fact that such a request violates SISO policy. To comply with the SAC’s terms would have the following detrimental effects:

1.     The XML schema would cease to be a viable product because it would not longer be in XML.

2.     The PDG would have to develop additional content, e.g. introduction, purpose, scope, and objectives, and vote on it, further delaying balloting and completion of the standard. Furthermore, given the SAC’s actions, doing so is no guarantee that they would allow us to proceed to balloting.

3.     The PDG intends to perform ballot resolution at the 2012 Fall SIW since this activity is most efficiently performed face toface. The delay to produce new content would delay completion of the standard at least 6 months by pushing ballot resolution at least to the 2013 Spring SIW.

4.     The PDG leadership has significantly constrained funding with which to manage the process of completing the standard. Producing another document would likely reduce available funding to the point where the standard couldn’t be completed.

 

What the appellant believes can be done to correct the matter

The SAC should approve the FEAT XML Schema as submitted to proceed to ballot.

 

Appeals Board

The P&P states the following about the constitution of the Appeals Board, “The first level of appeal within SISO is the SISO Appeals Board. The SISO Appeals Board consists of the Vice Chair of the EXCOM (Appeals Board Chair), the Vice Chair of the CC, and the Vice Chair of the SAC. If any member of the Appeals Board is a party of an appeal, the Chair of the EXCOMshall appoint another member of the respective committee to serve on the Appeals Board for the specific appeal.”

 

As the Vice Chair of the SAC, Marcy Stutzman, initiated the action being appealed, she is a party of the appeal. Therefore, she cannot serve on the Appeals Board. Normally, it would fall to me, as Chair of the EXCOM, to appoint a replacement member to the Appeals Board. Under the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Therefore, this responsibility will fall to Mark McCall as Vice Chair of the EXCOM and Chair of the Appeals Board.

 

Finally, I urge the Appeals Board to respond to this appeal promptly. Because the SAC delayed consideration of the FEAT ballot approval for several weeks, the PDG is already at risk of missing its schedule to perform ballot resolution at the 2012 Fall SIW.


KLM
---
Katherine L. Morse, PhD
Principal Professional Staff
JHU/APL
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD  20723-6099
(858)678-0629 (w)
(858)775-8651 (m)


From: "SISO-EXCOM: Katherine Morse" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: SISO-EXCOM <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Appeal of SAC Rejection of the FEAT XML Schema Ballot ApprovalPackage

From: "Katherine Morse" ([log in to unmask])

*** This message was generated from SISO-EXCOM ***

KLM
---
Katherine L. Morse, PhD
Principal Professional Staff
JHU/APL
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD  20723-6099
(858)678-0629 (w)
(858)775-8651 (m)

To reply: [log in to unmask]
To start a new topic: [log in to unmask]
To view discussion: http://discussions.sisostds.org/threadview.aspx?fid3&threadidR173#79231

To (un)subscribe: Send a message to [log in to unmask] with the word unsubscribe in the message body.
Important: the unsubscribe email needs to be in plain text format, and needs to have no subject line.

SISO: http://www.sisostds.org/




To unsubscribe from the SISO-EXCOM list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SISO-EXCOM