Ballot Details: OpenC2 Language Specification V1.0 Working Draft 01 as a CSD (CLOSED)

Ballot Question Do you approve the OpenC2 Language Specification v1.0 Working Draft 01 and all associated artifacts as a Committee Specification Draft 01 and submitting the draft for 30 days of public review?
Ballot Description General consensus was reached by the Language Subcommittee on these portions of the Language Specification and the Language Subcommittee recommends its approval. The balance of the Language Specification (to include portions marked TBSL and TBD in this version) will be provided in subsequent Working Drafts.

The OpenC2 Language Specification v1.0 Working Draft 01 and all associated artifacts are packaged together in oc2ls-v1.0-wd01.zip, https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/openc2/document.php?document_id=61908. The PDF version of the specification will be designated as authoritative. If a full majority is reached, then the Chair will be directed to perform and task as required by TC Admin to facilitate the issuance of a 30 day public review.
Ballot Options
VOTING CLOSED: Tuesday, 14 November 2017 @ 11:00 am EST
Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 21 80.769
No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation 5 19.231
Abstain 0
Open Date Tuesday, 31 October 2017 @ 11:00 am EDT
Close Date Tuesday, 14 November 2017 @ 11:00 am EST
Ballot Type Official, as defined by organization policies and procedures

Voting Statistics

Number of votes cast (excluding abstentions) 26
Eligible members who have voted 26 of 33 78.788%
Eligible members who have not voted 7 of 33 21.212%

Voting Summary by Option

Options with highest number of votes are bold
Option # Votes % of Total
Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 21 80.769%
No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation 5 19.231%
Abstain 0

Voting Details

Voter Name Company Vote * Time (UTC) Comments
* Andrenacci, Andrea Moviri SPA Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-09 16:02:00
* Brule, Joe National Security Agency Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-01 15:54:00
* De Bernardi, Andrea Moviri SPA Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-13 12:32:00
* Fai, Joyce National Security Agency Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-10-31 16:27:00
* Hagen, Stefan Individual Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-10-31 17:15:00
* Humphrey, Nick Huntsman Security Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-07 11:53:00
* Kakumaru, Takahiro NEC Corporation Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-13 17:57:00
* Kemp, David National Security Agency Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-03 19:53:00
* Lemire, David G2 Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-02 19:42:00
* Martinez, Danny G2 Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-10-31 19:28:00
* May, Andrew ViaSat Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-13 17:34:00
* Meck, James FireEye, Inc. Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-03 16:15:00
* Patrick, Paul FireEye, Inc. Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-06 18:54:00
* Romano, Jason National Security Agency Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-10-31 16:43:00
* Royer, Philip Phantom Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-03 21:23:00
* Skeen, Duane Northrop Grumman Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-10-31 18:05:00
* Sparrell, Duncan sFractal Consulting LLC Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-10-31 17:07:00
* Stueve, Gerald Fornetix Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-03 16:43:00
* Verma, Jyoti Cisco Systems Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-07 16:33:00
* Young, Dennis FireEye, Inc. Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-07 18:06:00
* Yu, Sounil Bank of America Yes; Accept as written and if a special majority is attained, forward for public review. 2017-11-06 01:42:00
* Darley, Trey New Context Services, Inc. No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation 2017-11-08 18:42:00 1
* Gurney, John-Mark New Context Services, Inc. No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation 2017-11-08 18:51:00 1
* Jordan, Bret Symantec Corp. No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation 2017-11-03 17:20:00 1
* Storms, Andrew New Context Services, Inc. No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation 2017-11-08 18:43:00 1
* Thomson, Allan LookingGlass No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation 2017-11-03 22:46:00 1
* Farral, Travis Anomali --
* Kirillov, Ivan Mitre Corporation --
* MacGregor, Scott McAfee --
* Ortiz, Efrain Symantec Corp. --
* Ricard, Chris Financial Services Information Sharing and... --
* Riedel, Daniel New Context Services, Inc. --
* Waltermire, David NIST --

Voter Comments

Submitter Vote Comment
Darley, Trey
New Context Services, Inc.
No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation Based on New Context's extensive experience with the OASIS CSD review process, we feel that the proposed CSD is premature. The document under consideration is missing numerous key sections, has unresolved references, and has clearly not undergone anything resembling the rigorous CSD editorial review process we have come to expect from our participation in other OASIS TCs. In our view, advancing this rough sketch as a CSD would impair rather than accelerate progress towards the stated goals of the OpenC2 TC.
Jordan, Bret
Symantec Corp.
No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation Far to many issues and problems to list here.
Thomson, Allan
LookingGlass
No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation Provided comments in the attached document. Sending this document in its current state for public review would be a waste of time for both the committee and anyone external that would look at this. I suggest the document should be more complete before we do that.
Download: oc2ls-v1.0-wd01-at.docx
Gurney, John-Mark
New Context Services, Inc.
No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation There is not enough specified in the document to go to public comment. The specification is effectively only a list of actions, w/o the ability to use them.
Storms, Andrew
New Context Services, Inc.
No; Send back to the Language Subcommittee for further deliberation After reviewing the OpenC2 Language Specification v1.0 Working Draft 01, I donít feel comfortable sending the document in its current state for a public review. There are numerous sections left blank or missing content. A few sections are simply labeled as "TBSL", without explanation of this acronym's meaning. While the ballot text indicates "(to include portions marked TBSL and TBD in this version) will be provided in subsequent Working Drafts", I am concerned that sending this to open comment may create a negative perception of the OpenC2 TC and add to confusion.