Subject: RE: CC minutes
The spec I posted yesterday (dated Dec 20) contains cosmetic updates to Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. These are the only changes from the version Duane posted on the XMLGlobal server.
--Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: agrangard@nycall.com [mailto:anders.grangard@edifrance.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 1:41 AM
To: ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
Cc: Bullen, Anne
Subject: Re: CC minutes
Duane/Team
The team's wish is my command. I will wait a day before I update the work
plan to allow views from the team. If we are to vote the 27th we need to
clarify on which version. Is the spec dated 20th December the same as the
one sent out Monday?
My rational for suggesting a vote and subsequent posting for the second
review cycle the 4th January:
1. It will allow time for the TA team to review and reach consensus on the
spec. A concern that was expressed at the last conference call.
2. We will still be a week ahead of the ebXML time table
3. The QR team are already reviewing the spec and will discuss it tomorrow,
the 22nd
4. We might be able to update chapter 5.3
Anders
----- Original Message -----
From: Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
To: agrangard@nycall.com <anders.grangard@edifrance.org>
Cc: <ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>; Bullen, Anne
<annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: CC minutes
> Anders:
>
> This is not acceptable. We need to vote on it sooner. At the latest,
> Dec 27. so QRT can stamp it.
>
> Please arrange a web vote. Small issues should not prevent its'
> circulation to a larger audience. Grammar and the lot can be entered as
> official comments.
>
> Does anyone disagree with this process?
>
> Duane Nickull
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC