OLAC Process

Copyright © 2002 Gary Simons (SIL International) and Steven Bird (University of Melbourne and University of Pennsylvania). This material may be distributed and repurposed subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Governing ideas
3. Organization
4. Type and status of documents
5. The document process
6. The working group process

References

1. Introduction

This document is the standard that defines how the Open Language Archives Community (OLAC) is organized and how it operates. In developing this standard, many ideas have been adapted from the process documents of four other standards efforts: [DCMI-Process], [IETF-Process], [OASIS-Process], and [W3C-Process]. The organization and process developed for OLAC are much simpler, however. This is fitting since OLAC is a small community with limited resources and--like most open source projects--it crucially depends upon the participation of many part-time members. Before defining the organization and process, the fundamental ideas that underlie them are first elaborated.

2. Governing ideas

In a successful enterprise, the participants have shared purpose, vision, and core values. These are what Peter Senge calls the "governing ideas" of the enterprise [Senge94]. The governing ideas answer three critical questions: "Why?" "What?" and "How?" Taken as a unit, they answer the question, "What do we believe in?":

• Purpose (or mission) is the "Why?"--the enterprise's answer to the question, "Why do we exist?"

• Vision is the "What?"--the picture of the future the enterprise seeks to create.

• Core values are the "How?"--these answer the question, "How do we want to act consistent with our mission, along the path toward achieving our vision?"

The purpose (or mission) of OLAC is as follows:

OLAC, the Open Language Archives Community, is an international partnership of institutions and individuals who are creating a worldwide virtual library of language resources by:

• developing consensus on best current practice for the digital archiving of language resources, and

• developing a network of interoperating repositories and services for housing and accessing such resources.

The vision of OLAC is described elsewhere in terms of "the seven pillars of language archiving" [OLAC-Vision] and shares much in common with the Open Archives Initiative [OAI]. In a nutshell, it is that:

Any user on the Internet should be able go to a single GATEWAY to find all the language resources available at all participating institutions, whether the resources be DATA, TOOLS, or ADVICE. The community will ensure on-going interoperation and quality by following STANDARDS for the METADATA that describe resources and services and for processes that REVIEW them.

The following core values guide the means that OLAC employs to achieve its vision:

Openness

By open we mean "freely available to all interested parties." This implies visibility, accessibility, and reusability. All of the metadata published by participating archives are open. All of the documents published by OLAC are open. The processes by which those documents are developed are also open.

Consensus

Decision making in OLAC is governed by the principle of consensus. A proposed standard or recommendation is adopted only when those who have reviewed it share substantial agreement that it is ready to be adopted by the community. This principle does not require unanimous consent, but requires far more than a simple majority. As a rule-of-thumb the OLAC Coordinators look for at least 80% approval among those responding before moving ahead with a decision.

Empowering the players

The standard protocols and processes that define the framework for the community are not set by an executive committee or by members who have paid dues. Rather, they are set by those who are actually "playing the game." That is, the price of membership is to implement the standards of the community. All institutions who have implemented the OLAC standards will have a voice in the consensus process that sets the standards. Furthermore, each institution will have a voice that is commensurate with the size of the collection it is supporting. This seems only right since implementing any changes to the standards will entail a further investment by participating institutions, and the size of that investment will be related to the size of its collection.

Peer review

As a part of the academic community, OLAC places a high value on peer review. All of the standards and documents of OLAC go through a process of anonymous peer review that is open to all who want to participate. To assure quality within its network of interoperating repositories and services, OLAC solicits anonymous peer review regarding conformance of participating institutions to its standards and recommendations. In addition it supports signed peer review for evaluations it does not solicit.

3. Organization

This section describes the organization of OLAC in terms of the groups of participants that play key roles. This document only defines the groups; see [OLAC-Organization] on the OLAC web site for a complete list of the currently participating individuals and institutions.

Coordinators

The persons who oversee the operation of the process described in this document.

Advisory Board

The members of the advisory board are persons who are recognized by their peers as being leaders within a subcommunity (whether defined by discipline or by geography) of the wider language resources and digital archiving community. They serve at the invitation of the OLAC Coordinators. Their role is two-fold: to advise the Coordinators about how to respond to particular concerns of their subcommunities, and to promote OLAC within their subcommunities.

Participating Archives and Services

The data providers and service providers who are following the OLAC standards and have successfully registered their membership on the OLAC gateway. For each registered member, there is a designated contact person with whom the OLAC Coordinators communicate to conduct community business.

Working Groups

Groups of individuals who participate in the OLAC process by drafting documents that are eventually submitted to the community as proposed standards, recommendations, or notes. A working group may also be formed for the purpose of cooperating in the implementation of standards, recommendations, or notes. For each working group, there is a chairperson who serves as the designated contact person.

Participating Individuals

Members of the wider user community who are interested in participating in the OLAC process and have registered with the OLAC gateway to receive community news and invitations to review OLAC documents.

4. Type and status of documents

The OLAC process is about how documents are developed and promulgated, for it is through documents that OLAC defines itself and the practices that it promotes. The documents published by OLAC are of three types:

Standard

A standard describes procedures that participating archives and services must follow when participating in the activities of the community or specifications they must follow when implementing data providers or service providers.

Recommendation

A recommendation describes the OLAC consensus on the best current practice regarding some aspect of language-resource archiving. Data providers and service providers (as well as the projects and individuals that create language resources) are encouraged, but not required, to follow these recommendations. The public review of data providers and service providers may include an assessment of degree of conformance to best current practice. The OLAC document process distinguishes two types of recommendations:

• Application of standards. Recommendations on the application of standards relate specifically to OLAC standards. They describe the OLAC consensus on best current practice regarding implementation of optional aspects of the standards that have been adopted by OLAC.

• Archiving practice. Recommendations on archiving practice relate more generally to any other aspect of current practice for the digital archiving of language resources.

Note

A note is any document published by OLAC which is neither a standard nor a recommendation. One purpose of notes is to ensure that standards and recommendations stay focused on rules and principles. Extended discussion or details of implementations should be treated separately in supporting notes. Another purpose is to provide a venue for perspectives that are not widely held. For instance, a note could be:

• Experimental. A note could propose a new or different approach that is not mature enough to be put forward as a standard or a recommendation but that has enough merit to put forward within the community for peer review.

• Informational. A note could give helpful information related to some aspect of a standard or recommendation, such as a description of historical background, an elaboration, a rationale, a non-normative explanation, or even an alternative viewpoint.

• Implementational. A note could give a description of a particular approach to implementing a standard or recommendation.

Orthogonal to the classification by type, OLAC documents are also classified by status. The first five status categories correspond to phases in the life cycle of a document; the sixth category represents withdrawal from the life cycle.

Draft

A document has draft status from its inception until the point at which its working group achieves consensus on its content.

Proposed

The status of a document moves from draft to proposed when it moves out of its working group and is posted for open peer review by the whole community.

Candidate

The status of a document moves from proposed to candidate when it has been approved by the community, but has not yet had sufficient experience with implementation to be considered for full adoption. (A note that needs no implementation may skip the candidate status.)

Adopted

The status of a document moves from candidate to adopted when it has been approved by the community following an adequate period of experience with implementation.

Retired

The status of a document moves from adopted to retired when the community decides that it is no longer relevant.

Withdrawn

The status of a document changes to withdrawn when it is removed from the document process before attaining adopted status.

5. The document process

The OLAC document process defines how documents get endorsed and published by OLAC. This includes treatment of intellectual property rights, as well as the means by which documents enter the process and progress from one status to the next along the five-phase life cycle.

Intellectual property rights. All documents published by OLAC on its web site are published under the terms of the Open Publication License [OPL]. Typically, the authors or editors of the document will be listed as the copyright holders.

Review. Documents must pass a review process in order to move to a higher status. The ultimate aim of review is: (1) to reveal specific points that need to be improved, and (2) to determine whether there is consensus that the document is ready to advance. The basis for consensus depends on the type of document:

• Standard. Is the document ready to serve OLAC as a standard? (Reviewers should agree with the content since they will be obligated to follow it.)

• Recommendation. Is the document ready to be put forward to the language resources community as best practice? (Reviewers should agree that the described practice will produce high-quality reusable data, though they are not obligated to follow the practice.)

• Note. Is the document ready for publication? (Reviewers are not asked to agree with all the content, only to agree that it is of adequate quality to be published.)

Voting. While a document is in draft status, the review process may be informal, but once it has achieved proposed status, it must pass a formal review process in order to move to a higher status. Reviewers are asked to make their summary evaluation of the document by voting for one of four options:

• Release. The document is ready as-is to be released to the next phase in the process.

• Revise. The document is ready for release without further review once noted minor revisions are made.

• Resubmit. The document should be revised and resubmitted for another round of review.

• Reject. The document does not have a solid enough basis to build on; it should be withdrawn from the process.

In the case of notes and of recommendations on archiving practice, every participating individual is invited to vote. As a general guideline, the OLAC Coordinators are to look for at least 80% agreement among all those casting votes as an indicator of consensus.

In the case of standards and of recommendations on the application of OLAC standards, all participating individuals are invited to comment, but not to vote. In keeping with the core value of "empowering the players," only participating archives and services have a vote on such documents. In order to account for the relative sizes of participants, each participant will cast a number of votes that is equal to the logarithm (base ten) of the number of metadata records that its repository or service is managing. Consensus will be judged to mean agreement among at least 80% of the votes cast.

Life-cycle phases. The life-cycle phases are now defined in terms of expected activity, duration, and criteria for advancing to the next phase:

Development phase

A document enters the process by one of two means. (1) Any working group may create a draft document. (2) An author who is not part of a working group may submit a draft document to the OLAC Coordinators. In the latter case, the Coordinators have two options: they may choose for the document to be processed in a working group (either by directing the author to join an existing working group or by assisting the author to form a new one), or they may choose for the document to be reviewed by at least three individuals whom they designate.

When a document is processed by a working group, the development phase comes to an end in one of two ways: the working group may decide to withdraw the document from the process, or it may reach consensus that the document is ready to be presented to the entire community as a proposal. At this point the working group chairperson notifies the OLAC Coordinators and the document attains proposed status.

When a document is processed by the Coordinators, the possible outcomes are the same: the designated reviewers may recommend that the document be withdrawn, or they may reach consensus that the document is ready to be presented to the entire community as a proposal.

Proposal phase

When a document achieves proposed status, the OLAC Coordinators send a call for review with a specific deadline date to the entire community. At the end of the review period, the tally of votes will be reported to the community and the specific comments (protecting reviewer identity when desired) will be made visible.

The Coordinators evaluate the results of the review to make a judgement as to whether there is a consensus that the document should advance to the next phase. If the Coordinators feel that too few participants have responded to feel comfortable about declaring a consensus, they may extend the review period. If the consensus is to reject the document, then it is withdrawn from the process. Otherwise, the Coordinators will advise the document's editors as to the next step. A document could remain in the proposal phase for multiple rounds of revision and review. The phase ends when either: (1) the document is withdrawn (whether following a consensus to reject or following a request from the editors after failing to revise the document successfully), or (2) the community has indicated consensus that the document is ready for release to the next phase and the Coordinators have determined that the editors have made any needed revisions.

Standards, recommendations, and some notes require implementation and community experience to ensure that they are ready for adoption. These documents achieve candidate status and enter the testing phase. Notes that require no implementation may go straight to adoption.

Testing phase

When a document enters candidate status, the OLAC Coordinators send a call for implementation with a specific deadline date to the entire community. The implementation period will be set for a duration not shorter than one month nor longer than one year, depending on the anticipated difficulty of implementation. At the end of the testing period, a call for review is issued in which the community members who have actually put the document to use are invited to describe their experience and vote on whether it is ready to advance to adoption. The process for evaluating the results of the review and advancing to the next phase is as described for the proposal phase with one exception--a reviewer consensus to reject is the only basis for withdrawing a document.

Adoption phase

A document may remain in the adopted status for an indefinite period. Its status remains as adopted until community action is taken to move it to retired status. (Once adopted a document may not be withdrawn; it may only be retired.)

Retirement phase

A document enters the retirement phase when it is given retired status. This could happen when it is superseded by the adoption of a newer version of the same document, when it is superseded by the adoption of an altogether different document, or when the community agrees that it has otherwise outlived its usefulness. In all cases an action of the community is required to move a document to retired status.

Changes to adopted documents. In the case of corrections or editorial refinements, the OLAC Coordinators may authorize a new version of an adopted document without going through community review. However, any substantive changes should be processed via a formal call for review. In this case, the new version enters the process with proposed status and the adopted version maintains its adopted status until it is retired by the adoption of the new version.

Documenting dissent. The appropriate place for the discussion of dissenting opinions about aspects of a document is in the mailing list for the working group that has sponsored the document. In this way the alternative ideas will not be lost, but will become part of the permanent archive of the working group's mailing list. At any time, dissenting ideas may be given a more prominent form by developing them into an experimental note that proposes an alternative approach or into an informational note that discusses the relative merits of different approaches.

6. The working group process

Working groups play a fundamental role in the OLAC process as the primary source of the documents that enter the OLAC document process. In keeping with the OLAC core value of openness, working groups are open to observation and participation by any member of the community. They are self-organizing in that members of the community may recognize the need for a working group and set it up on their own initiative.

Formation. A working group is formed by three or more eligible participants who represent at least three different institutions. Any person who is registered with OLAC as a Participating Individual is eligible to participate in an OLAC working group. In order to form a working group, the prospective group must submit the following to the OLAC Coordinators:

• the name of the working group

• a statement of purpose that is germane to the purpose of OLAC

• the names and email addresses of members representing at least three different institutions

• the name of the chairperson

• a list of planned documents and the projected date for completing the development phase of each

When the above conditions are satisfactorily met, the OLAC Coordinators will set up a web page for the working group and a mailing list that is seeded with the initial membership list. When those are in place, a call for participation will be sent out to the entire OLAC community. Any person who wants to participate in the development of the planned documents may subscribe to the mailing list and thereby become a member of the working group.

Chairperson. The working group chairperson serves as the point of contact with the OLAC Coordinators concerning the activities of the working group. The chairperson is responsible to keep the working group moving toward completing the documents listed on its web page and to communicate changes of plans for the working group to the OLAC Coordinators. A chairperson may resign or may be removed by a 2/3 vote of the working group members. A vacancy is filled by election from among members of the working group.

Meetings. Working groups typically conduct their business electronically, via their web page and their mailing list. If and when working groups do want to meet by teleconference or face-to-face, the working group members or their institutions will bear such costs.

Activities. The most concerted activity of a working group takes place during the development phase of its documents. Once a document reaches proposed status, the working group gets involved only when the community review calls for major revisions. Such revisions should be vetted within the working group before the document is resubmitted for community-wide review.

Decision making. The decision making within a working group will generally be done informally by gauging the sense of the traffic on the mailing list. However, when deemed necessary, the chairperson may request that the OLAC Coordinators set up a formal vote for the working group.

Dissolution. A working group will remain constituted as long as it is making progress towards developing planned documents or as long as documents it has developed are in proposed or candidate status. When these conditions are no longer met, the working group may elect to dissolve itself or may be dissolved by the OLAC Coordinators.

References