Re: TA Spec for release to the plenary

[duane <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

Some more comments:

Tim McGrath wrote:
> 
> it appears there are two issues running here..
> 
> 1. the status of the TA specification.
> and
> 2. the breakdown in the approval process

I agree that the breakdown of process needs to be addressed, however,
there are larger process issues that I would like to see included too:

1.  The QRT not delivering a consistent message to the TA Team.  I am
referring to comments in the last round that "Implementation details are
NOT to be in the TA document" then turning around and telling us that
the new TA document is incomplete becuase it does not prescribe
implementation details for SME's.  This is cdlearly an process of
breakdown internal to the QRT

2.  The larger issue of the QRT passing judgement on the suitability of
other specs which are clearly dependant on the TA spec.  Once the TA
spec gets approved, there must be a tracability matrix that makes sure
other specifications will fit into the overall architecture.  The TA
spec is currently (and rightfully so) subject to tracability to the
Requirements Team Specification.  

3.  The Executive Committee decides which specs go out for review, not
the QRT.  YOu have issued your say and it was negative.  The EC does not
necessarily share this viewpoint and in light of the fact that they did
not comment, it must receive a green light to go out to the ebXML
community (plenary).  

For heavens' sake,  we are all working for a common goal.  Let's put
this all behind and move the process forward.  The TA document NEEDS to
be seen by a larger audience before we finish it.  The QRT is preventing
that from happening.  The document going out for review is labelled
"DRAFT". NO one expects a finished paper.   

We have noted the comments from the QRT and many of them are conflictory
with other opinions.  The QRT cannot override the plenary on these
issues.  We have received support from most other teams (and in fact had
input on the latest document from leaders of many of those teams).  

I propose the following plan:

1/  The document is out for review as of tomorrow

2/  We collect comments from the ebXML plenary for the next two weeks.

3/  Members of the QRT sit down with us in Tokyo and review their
comments as well as the general comments.

4/  Out of Tokyo,  we build a new document to go out for a second review
cycle.  At this point,  the document should be looking mighty fine.

> 
> Firstly, the QR Team did respond negatively by the 24th October.  however due to
> (2.) this was not communicated to the Steering Committee and Authors until  26th
> Oct.   The problems with the breakdown of the approval process should be addressed
> separately.

According to due process,  this means it is out for review.  YOu had
until the 24th to pass comments to the Executive and the Executive
should have forwarded us a decision in the event it was negative.  We
received no such negative response.
> 
> Whilst it may be Duane has a point on a technicality, the real question is whether
> the TA Specification is suitable for public review?

Let me answer that.  The current document contains some shortcomings. 
All of those shortcomings, added together, are not sufficient to keep
the TA from circulating for it's first review cycle.  If it was the
second cycle,  I could maybe see your argument but not for the first.

THe real question is whether or not we will get ebXML working and
implementable.   This requires the TA document going out to the plenary
for a wider view of comments.  Sure it is not perfect!!  We need to
collect more comments. 
> 
> The QR team believe it is not.  However, we do believe it requires input from the
> broader ebXML community and have proposed the Steering Committee as the best means
> of achieving this.  We all agree that our objective is to get the TA specification
> suitable for voting at the Vancouver plenary.

If you do the math,  you will note that we are out of time for that
goal.  The current approval cycle is 14 weeks.  THerefore,  let's move
ahead right now.

> a. there is a difference between putting a document in the public eye and seeking
> input from the ebXML community.  it is kind of self-evident but the former opens the
> ebXML architecture to criticism from outside, which may not be productive at this
> stage, especially if it does not encapsulate the full ebXML 'vision'.

It is a first Draft.

> b. if the QR Team's concerns are not addressed then any effort put in now by the TA
> Team may be negated at the next round of review.

Are you stating that the QRT has power to dicatate it's points of view
and the rest of us don;t matter?  If you are,  I can guarantee there
will be several resignations from ebXML, probably myself included.  

> 
> May I suggest the most effective action would be for the Steering Committee Members
> to review the TA Specification and the QR comments and discuss this at the Steering
> Committee meeting next week.

If we are to meet the goal in Vancouver,  then it has to be out for
comments tomorrow.  The Steering Committee and the QRT can still have a
big say in the direction of the TA specification.  We will collect your
comments and I personally wil guarantee at least one full day in Tokyo
(perhaps more) to iron these issues out.  

IT is very inefficient to continue with the comment runaround we are
getting from QRT.  We have kept all the comments are they are 100%
conflictory in many cases.  All this does is add confusion to our goal. 
We stated our goals in San Jose and Orlando and there was no problem
with them then.  Why is there a problem with them now?

Let's *PLEASE* work together on this.  Everyone is on the same team - we
all want ebXML to succeed.  There is a due process which we have
followed to the letter and now the process is beginning to fall apart.

Duane Nickull


> 
> Duane Nickull wrote:
> 
> > Dear all:
> >
> > After reviewing the Specification Approval Process, we are formalling
> > submitting the Technical Architecture document for release to the
> > plenary for the first two week review cycle.  We have followed the
> > procedure properly and have not received a notice from the Executive
> > Committee advising us that it can't go out.  The executive has had time
> > to communicate.  Additionally,  the QRT Team did not respond negatively
> > by the 24th of OCtober, their self imposed deadline for communication.
> > We have subsequently received some comments from them which will be
> > entered into our general comments for discussionin Tokyo.
> >
> > Attached is the ZIP file containing both Word and PDF.  Please post to
> > the website and make the appropriate announcement to the general list
> > calling for comments to the TA Spec and announce the opening and closing
> > dates of the review cycle as per the Requirements Group' guidelines.
> >
> > We wish to begin collecting comments from the plenary as well and have
> > them categorized before Tokyo.
> >
> > Duane Nickull
> > TA
> >
> >   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >                         Name: ebXML_TA_v0.9.zip
> >    ebXML_TA_v0.9.zip    Type: Zip Compressed Data (application/x-zip-compressed)
> >                     Encoding: BASE64
> 
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142