godfrey%tcgould.tn.cornell.edu@plus5.UUCP (04/14/88)
This document was mailed to MDC members as X11/SC1/87-40.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To : MDC members December 18, 1987
From: John Godfrey
Subject: Current guidelines for proposals
This proposal addresses the process in which elements of the MUMPS language
are created or modified. Subcommittee 1 and the Full MDC need a set of
established rules for the advancement of language proposals.
Currently, there is no description of the process that a language proposal
takes to become a part of the MUMPS Standard. In reading the MDC's
constitution one finds only vague references to publications called "Type A
releases" and "Type B releases". There is no indication of the nature and
relationship of these releases other than the disclaimers that must be
included with the release:
TYPE A RELEASE DISCLAIMER
"The reader is hereby notified that the following language
specification has been approved by the MUMPS Development Committee
but that it may be a partial specification which relies on
information appearing in many parts of the MUMPS specifications.
This specification is dynamic in nature, and the changes reflected
by this approved change may not correspond with the latest
specification available.
Because of the evolutionary nature of the MUMPS specifications, the
reader is further reminded that changes are likely to occur in the
specification released herein prior to a complete republication of
MUMPS specifications.
..."
TYPE B RELEASE DISCLAIMER
"The reader is hereby notified that this document neither reflects
MUMPS language specifications nor any implied support by members of
Subcommittee #1 of the MUMPS Development Committee or their
sponsors, but that it is being offered for possible consideration by
the (name of releasing body). It is being made available in order
to establish better communication between the (name of releasing
body) and that segment of the public interested in MUMPS language
development.
..."
We clearly need a set of rules for organizing the proposals for our own
internal purposes.
The following is an outline of the steps necessary for a proposal to become
part of the MUMPS standard.
1. The proposal is sent to the MDC and is placed on the agenda for Sub 1.
It is assigned a proposal number (year and sequential number):
a. Copy sent to all MDC members in time to satisfy the "time-
limit" rule in the By-Laws, which states:
"9.6 - A proposal containing from one (1) to nine (9)
pages that has not been available to the MDC membership
for at least five (5) working days in advance of the
meeting or a proposal containing ten (10) or more pages
that has not been available to the committee membership
for at least fifteen (15) working days prior to the
meeting will be automatically tabled until no later than
the next meeting, upon the request of any member with
voting privileges. ..."
2. At the Sub 1 meeting,
a. The proposal is either read or described to the Sub 1 members.
Any person (MDC member or not) must have an "avenue" for
proposing ideas to the MDC and it is unreasonable to expect
them to explain their ideas in terms of the Standard.
Therefore, at this step, specific item changes to the Standard
are not required, but are encouraged.
b. Motion made to accept as "Sub 1 Type C" proposal.
c. Discussion, amendments possible.
d. Vote taken to accept (50% majority rule).
e. Upon acceptance, a Sub 1 member is assigned as the sponsor of
the proposal. The sponsor has responsibility for the
proposal's adherence to the following rules.
3. The sponsor is responsible for developing the proposal into a form
suitable for elevation for "Sub 1 Type B". This includes:
a. Sponsor of the proposal.
b. History of the proposal.
c. Purpose of the proposal.
d. Formal Definition
(Detail the changes to be made to Part I of the Standard.)
e. Examples, if appropriate.
f. Notes of explanation, if necessary.
4. The proposal is submitted to the MDC Secretariat who shall distribute it
to each member of Sub 1. This should be done such that it meets the
constraints of the "time-limit" rule in step 1.
5. At the Sub 1 meeting,
a. Motion to accept as a "Sub 1 Type B" proposal.
b. Discussion ensues. If changes have been made to the proposal, the
sponsor explains these changes. Amendments are possible.
c. A roll-call vote is taken (by institution, with a two-thirds
majority required for acceptance).
6. The sponsor ensures that amendments are incorporated, and a new document
is subsequently distributed (according to the "time-limit" rule in step
1).
7. The proposal may not become a "Sub 1 Type A" unless the following
conditions are met:
a. The proposal, in complete form, has been distributed to the Sub 1
members in accordance with the "time-limit" rule in step 1.
b. The proposal was not elevated to "Sub 1 Type B" during the same
session.
8. Ideally, at least one vendor should have implemented the proposal before
the proposal becomes a "Sub 1 Type A". If this action has not been done
at the time the motion is made to elevate it to "Sub 1 Type A", the Sub 1
members must carefully weigh the decision to elevate.
9. At the Sub 1 meeting,
a. Motion is made to accept the proposal as a "Sub 1 Type A".
b. Discussion allowed, substantive amendments not allowed (the chair
will rule on whether an amendment is substantive or not, follow
Roberts Rules).
c. A roll-call vote is taken (by institution, with a two-thirds
majority required for acceptance).
d. Upon failure, amendments may be made to the "Sub 1 Type B" proposal,
proceed to step 6.
10. The proposal may not become a "MDC Type A" unless the following
conditions are met:
a. The proposal, in complete form, has been distributed to the MDC
members in accordance with the "time-limit" rule in step 1.
b. The proposal was not elevated to "Sub 1 Type A" during the same
session.
11. At the Full MDC meeting,
a. Motion is made to accept the proposal as a "MDC Type A".
b. Discussion ensues. Substantive amendments not allowed (the chair
will rule on whether an amendment is substantive or not, follow
Roberts Rules).
c. Full MDC votes (roll-call, by institution) to accept as a "MDC Type
A" extension (two-thirds majority rule for acceptance).
12. Any substantive amendment to a "MDC Type A" automatically changes its
status to a "Sub 1 Type A" and can not be raised again to "MDC Type A"
status during the same session. The chair will rule on whether an
amendment is substantive or not (follow Roberts Rules).
13. Mail Votes should not be allowed on any language extension proposal.
Discussion is an important part of the decision process and should never
be left out.
14. At various stages in this process, a proposal can be moved from its
current status to any "lower" status or removed from consideration by a
roll-call vote (by institution, two-thirds majority rule) by the
appropriate committee. The official status levels are:
"MDC Type A" - Highest status
"Sub 1 Type A"
"Sub 1 Type B"
"Sub 1 Type C" - Lowest status
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please comment on the above.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Godfrey godfrey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu
Cornell Vet School rochester -\
624 VRT, Cornell U cmcl2 ------>!cornell!batcomputer!godfrey
Ithaca, NY 14853 uw-beaver -/ warrior!-/
(607)-253-3606 decvax----/ gould!-/
BITNET: godfrey@crnlthry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------