Subject: RE: TA Specification Review
Anders et al -
I have no problems with this schedule with one caveat - if postponing the vote until Jan 4 delays the QR team review and ebXML community review process, thus leading to a delay on voting at the Vancouver Plenary, then we MUST vote sooner. That said, I've sent email to Klaus and Tim McGrath asking for their advice on the scheduling and timing issues. If the schedule you propose below works, then we shall proceed according to your schedule If not, then, I'm afraid we'll need to vote earlier.
FYI - To address the comments that Tim informally made w/r/t the BP section, I've inserted an updated introduction (section 9.2.1) which Karsten and Paul Levine provided. Please consider this document, ebXML_TA_v0.95 to be the document which will be voted on by the TA team. I'm still awaiting working from Nikola, but this can be dealt with during the wider review and comments disposition.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 8:11 AM
To: Raman, Dick; email@example.com; ebXML SC, List server;
Subject: Re: TA Specification Review
This is my proposal, which is according to the ebXML time plan as amended at
this week's steering committee. It is my final one as, I am embarrassed to
say, do not intend to work over Christmas. I suggest any appeal to be
addressed to the executive team.
1. Voting by the Technical Architecture PT - 4th January (a vote next week
would not allow the team sufficient time for review, many will be on
holidays and no time will be gained)
2. Review by the Quality Review PT -5th to 9th January
3. Public review - 10th January to 23rd January
4. Editing/integration - 24th January to 2nd February
5. ebXML vote - 16th February
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Bob Sutor <email@example.com>; Bill Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Ray
Walker <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Cc: 'ebXML Coordination' <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: TA Specification Review
> At our teleconference on Thursday 21st Dec at 03:00 Pacific Time, the QR
> discussed the status of the TA Specification.
> It was agreed we could not complete our review at this time because:
> a. the document was still being amended
> b. significant changes to the BP section are imminent
> c. it has not been agreed internally by the TA team
> d. the QR team has not been able get full QR team representation of a
> document version for review
> Whilst the Team did comment that the working document(s) presented conform
> with the outcomes of the Tokyo plenary, the current 'parallel' track of
> internal comment/amendment and QR is not workable for a QR process.
> Therefore, it was agreed that I contact the TA Team and the Executive to
> a. the QR team cannot undertake a formal review until the document is
> 'frozen' by the TA Team. The TA Team should decide whether to incorporate
> further modifications over the next few days and formally advise of their
> request for QR (submit a request to Steering Committee list together with
> copy of the exact document in question).
> b. if (a.) can be done by the weekend of 23/24th December, the QR team
> review and report by the 29th.
> c. we understand this keeps the document within the schedule for voting at
> the Vancouver plenary.
> Perhaps the TA Team could indicate what they intend to do?
> NB this is not a negative comment on the excellent work to date of the TA
> Team - we just wish to make this a transparent and un-questionable process
> for now and the future.
> tim mcgrath
> TEDIS fremantle western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228 fax: +618 93352142
eList eXpress LLC