PAR Evaluation Criteria for the POSIX 1003.1-201x Reaffirmation (updated 22 March 2017) 1. INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE There must be widespread existing industry experience (User, Producer and General Interest) which represents a substantive portion of the scope of the PAR. This is a revision to the 1003.1-2008 standard to rollup the standard including its two technical corrigenda (as-is), so as to avoid the current standard timing out in 2018. This rollup edition is intended to be technically identical to the 2008 standard including its two technical corrigenda. The committee will also be starting another revision after this that is not expected to complete until 2020 at the earliest. 2. BASE DOCUMENT There must be a base document with community support from which the work can be started. If there are several documents, then there must be evidence of the willingness of the affected parties to work together to generate a single standard. Any such document must be for use free of encumbrances. The base document for this project is the 2016 edition of the standard produced by the Austin Group editors. This is not encumbered. 3. REALISTIC SCOPE AND TIMELINE The scope of work must specify a realistic set of objectives, attainable by the specified completion date. Note that the completion date must be within a window which allows the produced standard to be accepted and useful. Such objectives should include: - Document outline - First Draft - First Ballot The draft timeline for the document (from the Austin Group) is as as follows: The Document outline and draft exist - the 2016 edition. The project is anticipated to take 3 months from PAR approval. We are looking for PAR approval in June 2017. Project start: Base document available 30 day ballot 10 day recirculation Formal approval by the IEEE will be December 2017 4. APPROPRIATENESS AND INDUSTRY ACCEPTANCE Is there evidence that developers of portable applications will use the results of the work? Not just "is it within PASC scope" but "does this bring sufficient value to the industry" or "does it sufficiently further the interests of the industry"? There is significant evidence that application developers have widely accepted IEEE Std 1003.1-2008. This rollup will ensure that the current standard will not be withdrawn in 2018. 5. COORDINATION PLAN For PARs affecting approved standards, a plan for coordination and integration of the work must be established. Extensions or modifications to approved standards should only be made after careful consideration of the impact on the community which relies on these stable, approved standards. PARs which propose extensions or modifications must indicate the other PASC standards work which they will affect. This project is largely an administrative task, but will be carried out by those who developed IEEE Std 1003.1-2008, that is the Austin Group. 6. COMMUNITY COMMITMENT Submitters of a PAR must exhibit the community's commitment to participate in the work. These participants must include a Chair and Technical Editor, as well as a sufficient number of technical experts representing a reasonable balance of viewpoints, and the participants must be willing to support the secretarial function. Committed participants should have expertise in the subject matter or should be able to draw upon resource with that expertise. The identified participants must be prepared to begin work immediately upon the proposed project; PARs will not be sponsored if nobody will actively work the project for some time. Professional project management and Technical Editor services will be provided by The Open Group. The Austin Group has a core of regular attendees of its teleconference meetings, and participants in its mailing lists that provide the expertise in the subject matter and that are prepared to work on this item. 7. WITHIN PASC SCOPE The PAR's proposed scope of work must be within the scope of PASC activities. The work is within scope. 8. REASONABLE RESOURCE IMPACT The time frame for the work specified in the PAR must be appropriate given the impact it will have on PASC resources (e.g. core personnel from other active PASC work groups, meeting space, etc.) The resources are deployed within the Austin Group, so there is no impact. 9. TEST PLAN We do not intend to produce test methods in parallel with production of the documents, but the existing test suites for POSIX.1 are being updated to align with the changes in the recent Technical Corrigendum 2 and thus are already on track to be usable for this rollup revision. 10. ISO JTC1 BUSINESS CASE All projects which are expected to be progressed through any ISO JTC1 mechanism must have a business case which is submitted to JTC1 as part of the JTC1 New Project approval process. The pro forma business case definitions are attached as Appendix B. This section of the PAR Evaluation Criteria discusses the relationship between other criteria and the various sections of the pro forma. Market relevance (A.1) is related to criterion 4, Industry Acceptance. There must be a group of likely users of the proposed work; that is, people or organizations that are likely to acquire implementations of the standard. There must also be a group of vendors likely to implement the proposed standard. The group of users must be specifically identified. Regarding Regulatory Context (A.2), it seems likely that regulations of a single nation will be of little interest to ISO. The Related Work criteria (B.1, B.2, B.3) ask for a list of other standards or organizations. It appears that references to any accredited Standards Body or work thereof are acceptable; IEEE projects and documents, in particular, have been mentioned. The Mature Technology status (C.1) derives directly from criteria 1 and 2, Existing Industry Experience and Base Document. Given those criteria, the vast majority of PASC projects proposed for ISO progression should check the Yes box for this item. Other PAR evaluation criteria are designed to strongly discourage projects based on Prospective Technology (C.2); it is very unlikely that PASC would sponsor a project for which the answer to this criterion is Yes. PASC PMC Procedures Appendix B - JTC1 Business Case Pro Forma (Extracted from ISO JTC1 N4477) A. Business Relevance. That which identifies market place relevance in terms of what problem is being solved and or need being addressed. A.1. Market Requirement. When submitting a NP, the proposer shall identify the nature of the Market Requirement, assessing the extent to which it is essential, desirable or merely supportive of some other project. Indicate if this is Essential, Desirable, or Supportive. ISO 9945 is an important standard in use throughout the world, and this will ensure that a standard continues to be available past 2018. This is an essential market requirement. Millions of dollars of applications are built upon these standards. A.2 Technical Regulation. If a Regulatory requirement is deemed to exist - e.g. for an area of public concern e.g. Information Security, Data protection, potentially leading to regulatory/public interest action based on the use of this voluntary international standard - the proposer shall identify this here. Indicate if this is Essential, Desirable, Supportive, or Not Relevant. Not Relevant B. Related Work. Aspects of the relationship of this NP to other areas of standardization work shall be identified in this section. Each of the three subcriteria should indicate whether the work is being performed for the identified purpose, Yes or No. B.1 Completion/Maintenance. If this NP is concerned with completing or maintaining existing standards, those concerned shall be identified here. Yes this is maintenance of 1003.1-2008 (ISO/IEC 9945:2009). B.2 External Commitment. Groups, bodies, or fora external to JTC1 to which a commitment has been made by JTC for cooperation and or collaboration on this NP shall be identified here. IEEE PASC The Open Group B.3 External Std/Specification. If other activities creating standards or specifications in this topic area are known to exist or be planned, and which might be available to JTC1 as PAS, they shall be identified here. None. C. Technical Status. The proposer shall indicate here an assessment of the extent to which the proposed standard is supported by current technology. For each of the three possible statuses, the technology of the proposed NP should be rated Yes or No. C.1 Mature Technology. Indicate here the extent to which the technology is reasonably stable and ripe for standardization. Yes C.2 Prospective Technology. If the NP is anticipatory in nature based on expected or forecasted need, this shall be indicated here. No. C.3 Models/Tools. If the NP relates to the creation of supportive reference models or tools, this shall be indicated here. No. D. Any other aspects of background information justifying this NP shall be indicated here. This is a joint project between The Open Group, IEEE PASC and ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22