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: RE: (null)

Title: RE: (null)

Klaus -

I think we're all finally in agreement over the schedule. Sorry for the confusion. I think the schedule that Anders posted, along with the comments that Duane made in response to my email clarify our current standing. We will proceed according to the schedule that Anders posted, with a team vote ending on Jan 4, and a subsequent submission to the QRT.


-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus-Dieter Naujok
To: ebXML-Architecture List
Cc: ebXML SC, List server
Sent: 12/26/2000 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: (null)


Thanks for the reply and trying to clarify the time table. However, here
is what Anders send to the StC:

1. Voting by the Technical Architecture PT - 4th January (a vote next
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

As you can see there is only one review cycle, not two as you outlined.
The public review scheduled for 10-23 Jan is considered the second
review. Therefore the document must be in final form. Your clarification
has two reviews before approval, which would make sense knowing that the
document is not in final form. However that would push the approval back
and not to the dates as reviewed by the StC.

I am still not sure what timeline the group is working to. If we go by
your clarification we would approve the TA specification in Geneva, not

Thanks again for your help in trying to clarify the situation.



--Original Message Text---
From: Brian Eisenberg
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:16:03 -0800

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

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

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