Subcommittee Reorganization - common meeting

RE:  So the LS-SC and the IC-SC should meet together and have a common agenda (for an indefinite period)
  &
If we have common meeting times and common agendas, then isn t that a single subcommittee?


  Common agendas can have multiple meaning
it could just mean they each get their piece of the overall agenda.


  I do like the idea of  trialing  the meetings before changing our formal organization. This would give us data on what differences occurred and whether it was an improvement.


  I am against singling out 2 of the 3 subcommittees. I still don t understand why the LSC/ICSC are the two to combine.


  We could consider a periodic (every 2 weeks? Every month?) 1-hour meeting that had a nominal agenda of the first 20 min for LSC, the second 20 min for AP-SC, and the third 20 min for IC-SC. I picked equal times because of my polling of
  the SC cochairs at the last TC meeting. But I would expect the numbers to vary weekly. We would be flexible based on agenda topics
eg if LSC had less, then it would get less. Each section of meeting would still be run by respective SC cochairs. At the cochair
  tagup the cochairs could do the time/agenda allocation for the following week.



Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at   http://vsre.info  /
From:
Joseph Brule <>
Date:  Monday, February 24, 2020 at 12:54 PM
To:  Dan Solero <>, Vasileios Mavroeidis <>
Cc:  "" <>, TC OpenC2 <>
Subject:  RE: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - for/against/neither



Dan, Vasileios,



I am not trying to be flippant or anything like that, I honestly don t understand something.  If we have common meeting times and common agendas, then isn t that a single subcommittee?



I have always liked the notion of co-chairs, provides a backup (in the event that somebody has a life and goes on vacation or whatever).  Keeping the co-chairs down to two people allows for agility.  Four co-chairs
  could be a little clumsy and I think OASIS has a rule that you can have at most two.



In the context of separation of concerns, I am confident that most of us can agree with that.  I don t think that formally defining separate subcommittees is required to make that happen.  It is reasonable to
  assume that if we succumb to our totalizing instincts, then we can trust our colleagues to remind us



Regarding participation: OpenC2 is my first rodeo, so the following is an uneducated opinion.  Am I concerned with the fact that we have over 100 people in the TC and fewer than a dozen at any particular SC meeting?
  Well yes, I am.  I don t know if it is a natural lull, a lack of interest, or if it is due to people actively undermining us, but...

I will take the results of the first Plug Fest as an indication that there is genuine interest in OpenC2.
I suspect that there are some people who are actively making efforts to undermine OpenC2, but I would guess that there are very few.

I suspect that surges and lulls are normal. We are seeing a number of topics in the AP-SC and as we gain experience, we will identify needed changes and
  activity will increase.

NOTE:  Those three bullets were my uneducated opinion.



Regardless of the reason, I doubt that the SC organization will significantly impact the likelihood of a person participating (or not).  Getting a draft released for comment will do much more for participation.
  (Again, that was my uneducated opinion)



I agree with the notion of leaving the AP-SC as is and combining the LSC and IC-SC, but I am not at the point where I am going to ask anyone to choose pistols or sabers.  I am fine with whatever the majority
  decides.



VR



Joe Brule
From:   <>
  On Behalf Of  SOLERO, DAN
  Sent:  Monday, February 24, 2020 9:48 AM
To:  Vasileios Mavroeidis <>; Brule, Joseph M <>
Cc:  duncan sfractal.com <>; OASIS OpenC2 List <>
Subject:  [Non-DoD Source] RE: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - for/against/neither


  I agree with Vasileios.  Unless there is some compelling reason for reorganization beyond time effectiveness, sharing meeting times would seem to be a good compromise position.

  Dan
From:   <>
  On Behalf Of  Vasileios Mavroeidis
  Sent:  Monday, February 24, 2020 7:53 AM
To:  
Cc:  Vasileios Mavroeidis <>; duncan sfractal.com <>; OASIS OpenC2 List <>
Subject:  Re: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - for/against/neither


  I would keep the organizational structure the way it is. I don t think that re-organization will foster higher participation right now, but I do understand that having one group will allow more people to stay in the loop by aggregating
  them all together at this point . I would say keep separation of concerns but merge the meetings. So the LS-SC and the IC-SC should meet together and have a common agenda (for an indefinite period).





  -Vasileios



  On 24 Feb 2020, at 13:25, Brule, Joseph M < 
> wrote:



Willing to go along with it either way.
From:    duncan

 sfractal.com  < 
>
  Sent:    Sunday, February 23, 2020 8:29 AM
To:    Brule, Joseph M <  >; OASIS OpenC2 List < 
>
Subject:    [Non-DoD Source] Subcommittee Reorganization - for/against/neither



  It would be very helpful to understand what more people think about the reorganization. Please respond with where you are on the issue. Are you strongly for it, for it, strongly against it, against it, willing to go along with the majority
  either way, don t really care, other thoughts?



  My concern is my standards experience tells me that most people will keep quiet on issues like this and vote yes because they trust the leadership. In this case the leadership is divided. Being honest, I happen to be against the reorganization
  for the reasons I ve stated in all my other emails, slack message, etc. So the  vote yes  because everyone votes yes hurts my case and therefore I m trying to distinguish between the  not raising objection  and the  actually for .



  It would be very useful to get more input
even if you say  I really don t care .



Duncan Sparrell

sFractal Consulting LLC

iPhone, iTypo, iApologize

I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at   http://vsre.info  /
From:
TC OpenC2 < 
> on behalf of Joseph Brule
  < 
>
Date:    Friday, February 21, 2020 at 1:09 PM
To:    TC OpenC2 < 
>
Subject:    [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization



  All,



  A reorganization of the subcommittees was proposed during the January 2020 TC meeting.  The purpose of this email is to present the resolution, provide background information and initiate deliberations on the topic.  Once the deliberations
  are complete, Dave Lemire will generate an electronic ballot in accordance with the direction provided by the TC during the February TC meeting.



  NOTE:  Review the deliberations and if you believe that I did not capture the point correctly in the summary of the deliberations then provide the correction and/or provide additional points.  If there is an error, then accept that it was
  an honest mistake on my part.



  FURTHER NOTE:  SLACK messages are not available to all our members. I will attempt to transfer any SLACK messages to the oasis email relay, but it is preferred if you use this email as the medium for deliberations.



  RESOLVED:  The OpenC2 Technical Committee shall form a new subcommittee to be known as the  Language and Architecture Subcommittee .  Upon formation of the new subcommittee, the  Language Subcommittee  and the  Implementation Considerations
  Subcommittee  shall transfer their activities to the new subcommittee.



  Background


A
  proposal to transfer the activities of the LSC and ICSC to a new SC was proposed during the January Monthly TC


The
  general consensus was to revisit the issue after the Plug Fest and email deliberations


Objections
  were raised during the February Monthly TC meeting.


There
  was general consensus with the approach of continuing the deliberations via email and upon conclusion of the email deliberations a decision will be made via electronic ballot.

  After the Plug Fest, the proposed new subcommittee was brought up via email.


The
  net effect is to combine the LSC and ICSC into a single subcommittee


The
  AP SC will maintain its current tempo and leadership


Objections
  to the proposal were made known via email on Feb 18, 2020.

  Summary of Deliberations


Statement
  FOR


Level
  of effort required to revise and maintain is substantially less than the initial draft


The
  scope of the LSC and IC-SC are at a 'systems' or  architectural  level while the scope of the AP-SC is at a 'component' level therefore logical to combine the 'system' or 'architectural' tasks in one subcommittee and the 'component' tasks in a separate subcommittee


The
  results of the Plug Fest seem to validate the proposal in that the vast majority of the issues identified were component level


Statement
  AGAINST


Should
  retain separate subcommittees to retain their focus and maintain separation of concerns


Several
  (structured) subcommittees permit attendees to focus their attention on their areas of interest and expertise and avoid diluting the meeting.


Rebuttal
  to the statement AGAINST


No
  rebuttal offered


Rebuttal
  to the statement FOR


The
  reduced workload is more appropriately addressed by changing the cadence of the meeting rather than broaden the scope of the subcommittee.


Do
  not agree that the current Language and IC-SC are more similar to each other, in fact [one individual] thinks that the AP-SC has more in common with the LSC than the IC-SC.





  Joe Brule

  Engineering (Y2D122)

FNX-3, B4A335

  410.854.4045

  'Adnius ad retinedam puritem noster peciosus corporalis fluidorum '

  I welcome VSRE emails.  Learn more at
http://vsre.info/