Policy and Procedures
- The TC standards adoption electronic voting process and application or too complex, confusing, and need to be simplified. Further, under the current e-cote process, NO votes and stall an adoption vote for way too long and interrupt the ability of the OGC and the SWG to do their work.
- The Modular Specification Policy in its current state inhibits the ability to get work done, creates more complex (or longer) standards, and is not easily understood. Perhaps we need a re-write of that policy (there is a proposal and associated document) or we need another path through the OGC standards process that does not require the use of the Mod Spec.
- How can OGC further open its processes to broader / earlier community participation and invovlement?
- Greater public access to SWG activities, mailing lists. Get earlier input.
- Can we manage IPR concerns adequately to protect standards from infringement?
- How can we better position our public comment process to be more effective?
- GITHUB for access to developers
I was not aware that SWGs could charter themselves to be (partially?) public. I realize there are legal reasons for wanting (at least some) SWG discussions to be private, but in an ideal world, the best ideas should float to the top and incorrect / unworkable ideas should sink out of sight. The credo of the IETF is "Rough consensus and running code", which I think is pretty good, and could suit the OGC well too, when you consider test beds, interoperability experiments etc. Non-members shouldn't have a vote, I suppose, but they should be able to help SWG members analyze a problem, if they have an interest in a subject. Maybe make the chartering of a SWG more of a guarantee of success (production of an endorsed standard), but make the chartering of a SWG a bit more of a challenge. IOW the vote to create a SWG should almost mean for sure you're going to come out of that with an approved standard, BUT the initial vote to charter a SWG would have stricter requirements.
- 11 Jul 2013