Motion 53: Changes to CCA Standardization Process

NOTE: This is a reprint. The official motion is archived on Quorum. It was submitted April 11, 2007. Voting started April 17, 2007. The final tally on May 8, 2007 was 11 for, 0 against.

Proposed Changes to CCA Process

This proposal seeks to add three main elements to the CCA specification process.

1. Establish a multi-stage CCA specification process, to categorize the maturity and adoption of each proposal.
2. Institute the practice of ad hoc task forces (with charters, lifespan, and named chair) to shepherd a proposal through the multi-stage CCA process.
3. Create a Architecture Review Board (ARB) that oversees quality and consistency of specification as a whole. Has the authority to constitute and dissolve task forces.

I. Multi-staged CCA specification Process

This section defines levels by which a proposed modification to the CCA specification advances, and the requirements necessary to transition from one level to the next. In all cases, the task force chair is the primary advocate for shepherding the technology through the process and the ARB is responsible for the entire specification as a whole.

The levels are fixed. The requirements listed below are the default requirements for each level. The ARB may make exemptions for degenerate cases, or impose extra requirements when necessary. The goal is to have a process that works, and keep progress moving at a reasonable clip, and ensure a level of consistent quality.

1. Idea: We all have these. Anyone in CCA can take an idea and apply to chair a task force to develop this idea. Once a task force is constituted, it will be tracked and published on the CCA website. To progress to the next stage, the proposal should gain near consensus within the task force.
2. Draft: A proposal at this stage is suitable for consideration by frameworks and tools groups, not just the task force. Ideally, there would be 2 separate implementations generated and both of these groups would approve the proposal before progressing to the next stage.
3. Candidate: A proposal at this stage of maturity would be suitable for internal applications to begin using the technology in the proposal. But it is not yet approved for general release until sufficient test cases, documentation, and forum-wide approval have been obtained.
4. Final: A proposal at this stage is suitable for the Tutorial and outreach communities. This will often advance the version number of the official CCA specification.

II. Task Forces

The purpose of a task force is to have an explicit unit of people who are working together to advance the specification in a certain direction. To chair a task force, an individual must propose a charter, deliverable, and time to completion to the ARB. The existence of the task force, its chair, and the delivered product become part of the permanent record of CCA's activities.

The CCA Forum has, for some time, had an informal concept of "working groups". These are groups that form around topics of common interest. They are not part of the CCA standards process, per se, but are common foci for BOFs at CCA meetings. It is likely that working groups may spin off formal task forces when their work involves changes in the CCA specification.

III. Architecture Review Board (ARB)

The ARB is constituted of 3-5 individuals selected by the general chair of the CCA, and may include the general chair themself. The entire slate of ARB members selected by the general chair must be ratified by a simple majority of the CCA-Forum. The Chair can appoint individual replacements when ARB members step down, but cannot remove individuals once they are part of a ratified slate. A Chair may propose a new slate of ARB members at any time, but the new slate must then again be ratified by the general forum.

The primary responsibility of the ARB is to keep the specification process running efficiently and effectively for the betterment of the CCA specification. Members of the ARB are obliged to consider all petitions for forming new task forces, and confirming when a task force has satisfied all the requirements for its charter. The ARB may renew, cancel, or suggest modifications to
the task force's charter.

Motivation

This proposal is a follow up to the discussion in the Winter '07 CCA meeting. Relevant slides are here http://www.cca-forum.org/download/mtg/2007-01/kumfert-cca-process.pdf

This proposal is intentionally short and informal. Due to the intertwined nature of the three major elements of this proposal, its initial acceptance is all-or-nothing.

Amendments can be made later by the traditional simple majority vote. There is no clause requiring a super-majority.