ebxml-architecture message

OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

Subject: No Subject


Klaus -

I think Duane may be confused over the word "plenary". I believe that what he means is that we (the TA team) should vote (Jan 4) to freeze the TA spec for formal submission to the QR team. After the QR team approves the spec, it goes out to the wider ebXML community. Then, after receiving comments from the entire ebXML community (what Duane refers to as "plenary"), we will make the appropriate changes in the spec and then move to a 2nd comment and review period (again - for the entire ebXML community). The TA team and editors will review the document, make the final changes and freeze the document for voting and approval at the ebXML PLENARY session in Vancouver.

Duane - please confirm that this is our intention, as this is my current understanding.

Klaus - please forward to STC as needed.



-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok
To: ebXML-Architecture List
Cc: ebXML SC, List server
Sent: 12/26/2000 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: TA Specification Review

On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 05:52:37 -0800, duane wrote:

>1. Vote by TA committee to send it out to QRT AS IS
>2. QRT PT to okay document for submission to the Plenary for general
>   comments


>NOTE:  Items 1 and 2 are done with an explicit view that the document
>NOT in its' final form.  We are putting it out for comments.


I am totally confused. I was my understanding that the deliverable
was to have in Vancouver the TA approved by the plenary. This was
recorder as such in the project plan as reviewed by the StC during
the last two calls since Tokyo. You seem to indicate that you want
to receive comments at that meeting instead. This clearly
indicates a departure from the plan. Further, what good is a
review if the document is "not" in the final form. If anything
such a review would be nothing more than a "first" review. We can
not go out with a second review with a document that is not
considered final. The reason being that the "last" review which is
two weeks before the plenary vote is to ensure that all issues are
addressed that surfaced during the first two reviews. It was never
envision to send incomplete documents out for review. I am very
worried that by putting out a not final form document for comments
at this time will impact our deliverables as agreed in Tokyo. I
urge the team to address this in order for the team lead to inform
the StC ASAP about the status and time table for the 2nd review
and plenary approval.



Klaus-Dieter Naujok                         ebXML & TMWG Chair
Antioch, CA USA                                +1.925.759.1670

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC