openc2 — archive

Subcommittee Reorganization - relative work loads

From: Duncan Sparrell
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:52:00 -0000

Joe, Dave, We can agree to disagree on workload. My opinion is still the IC-SC has more work than the AP-SC based on the documents in preparation. I agree there were more specific action items against the SLPF than against the other specs. I agree there should be eventually be more Actuator Profiles than transport specs but that is not the case at the moment. And the IC-SC is also responsible for the open source of which there is a growing amount as well as information assurance committee note. But it s a moot point - all three SC s said they have work, and more work than people. The meeting notes reflect this. IC-SC Mr. Lemire replied that there are certainly work items for the near term, but he remained concerned about the very low level of participation to address those items AP-SC more work items than contributors LSC was similar to that for the other two SCs: there is work to do, and he is concerned about the small number of participants to address it But as Toby pointed out, this is generally the case in standards. Everybody wants the answers, but everyone is busy so can t contribute as-much/as-fast as we d all prefer. I do not believe regorganizing the TC will change this. I agree with Joe s assessment that we d be better off putting the time into writing specs. Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info / From: Joseph Brule <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 10:39 AM To: Dave Lemire <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: TC OpenC2 <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - common meeting Duncan, A comment to your comment regarding relative work loads I clearly stated Inspection of the number and scope of the action items from the plug fest validates the hypothesis. , the bulk of the issues raised at the plug fest were AP-SC related, at least based on the last time I looked at the github issues Still, it is a hypothesis and I did not intend to present it as a fact or physical law. Dave L, Your assessment of the relative workloads is similar to what I have guessed and when you think about it, it is logical and consistent with what Sudeep said in yesterday s email: Sudeep said Language specs are meant to be rigid and comprehensive. Implementations are given to experimentation, fast moving tech landscape and are fluid by nature. The mechanics of the two are entirely different Sudeep did not say this, but I will add The actuator profiles will also be fast moving and fluid by nature due to the dynamics of technology My only (very minor) departure from Sudeep s analysis is that I think in the end state, there will be relatively few transfer specs (probably a single digit number) and there will be dozens of actuator profiles. It s not like I am going to challenge anyone to a duel over this matter. If we go with two SC s, then cool, if we stay with three, then fine. I think going with one meeting divvied up three ways is a bad idea, but can live with it. I wish I never brought this up, the time would be better spent on an actuator profile Joe B From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dave Lemire Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:04 AM To: duncan sfractal.com <[email protected]> Cc: OASIS OpenC2 List <[email protected]> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - common meeting Based on taking notes and doing minutes, I must disagree somewhat with "virtually identical answers with respect to workload". Alex stated he had more work than people to do it. My overall assessment of workload, as discussed at the TC meeting would be AP-SC - highest workload IC-SC - moderate workload L-SC - lowest workload What all co-chairs did commonly report was a concern about attendance at SC meetings and level of involvement. As Duncan and others have described the best way to address this may be for the small number of participants to be getting black-on-white in order to prompt feedback and improvement from interested parties. I think it's fair to say that at least the IC-SC meetings have drifted away from specifics toward generalities since the specifications were approved, and moving back toward specifics might prove useful. WRT to specifics, I was happy to see Duncan's email about SBoM AP content and look forward to reviewing it. Dave David Lemire, CISSP Systems Engineer HII Mission Driven Innovative Solutions (HII-MDIS) formerly G2, Inc. Technical Solutions Division 302 Sentinel Drive Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 Email: [email protected] Work: 301-575-5190 Mobile: 240-938-9350 On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:50 AM duncan sfractal.com < [email protected] > wrote: I disagree with the relative work loads . As you recall, on the evening monthly TC call I asked the same questions of all three SC s and got virtually identical answers with respect to workload. I personally think the IC-SC has the highest workload, and I think my plugfest experience also supports this (more opensource, more transfer/transport specs). Wrt boiling all the subcommittees into a single timeslot I agree that I d prefer each SC meet on it s own for the reasons Michelle gave and note she was explaining why NOT to combine the LSC and IC-SC. I m just arguing that if we must combine, then combine them all. I still maintain AP/IC have more in common than L/IC, but I d prefer we remain with 3. Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize I welcome VSRE emails. Learn more at http://vsre.info / From: TC OpenC2 < [email protected] > on behalf of Joseph Brule < [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 at 8:14 AM To: 'Vasileios Mavroeidis' < [email protected] >, " [email protected] " < [email protected] > Cc: TC OpenC2 < [email protected] > Subject: RE: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - common meeting Vasileios, Understood. Duncan, In addition to the reasons I pointed out earlier in this email chain, AP SC was singled out due to the relative work loads. Inspection of the number and scope of the action items from the plug fest validates the hypothesis. The notion of boiling all the subcommittees into a single timeslot with a common agenda is a different topic and (my opinion) would be an error for the reasons that Michelle Barry pointed out circa Feb 18. (Diluting the expertise and focus of the SC, these are different concerns, the appropriate means to address the time and attendance issue is via changing the tempo and she stated better than I could so advise reread her email rather than have me plagiarize. ) Regards Joe B From: [email protected] < [email protected] > On Behalf Of Vasileios Mavroeidis Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 4:47 AM To: duncan sfractal.com < [email protected] > Cc: OASIS OpenC2 List < [email protected] > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [openc2] Subcommittee Reorganization - common meeting I meant exactly what Duncan described. Common meetings, and one agenda that dividesallocates time based on the requirements of each committee. -Vasileios On 25 Feb 2020, at 02:06, duncan sfractal.com < [email protected] > wrote: 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 < [email protected] > Date: Monday, February 24, 2020 at 12:54 PM To: Dan Solero < [email protected] >, Vasileios Mavroeidis < [email protected] > Cc: " [email protected] " < [email protected] >, TC OpenC2 < [email protected] > 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: [email protected] < [email protected] > On Behalf Of SOLERO, DAN Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 9:48 AM To: Vasileios Mavroeidis < [email protected] >; Brule, Joseph M < [email protected] > Cc: duncan sfractal.com < [email protected] >; OASIS OpenC2 List < [email protected] > 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: [email protected] < [email protected] > On Behalf Of Vasileios Mavroeidis Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 7:53 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Vasileios Mavroeidis < [email protected] >; duncan sfractal.com < [email protected] >; OASIS OpenC2 List < [email protected] > 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 < [email protected] > wrote: Willing to go along with it either way. From: duncan sfractal.com < [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 8:29 AM To: Brule, Joseph M < [email protected] >; OASIS OpenC2 List < [email protected] > 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 < [email protected] > on behalf of Joseph Brule < [email protected] > Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 1:09 PM To: TC OpenC2 < [email protected] > 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/