Re: TA Spce for release to the plenary

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@tedis.com.au>]

it appears there are two issues running here..

1. the status of the TA specification.
and
2. the breakdown in the approval process

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.

Whilst it may be Duane has a point on a technicality, the real question is whether
the TA Specification is suitable for public review?

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.

Without wishing to add to the noise on the first issue, I would like to make some
personal observations and a suggestion.  Please feel free to ignore these if they
appear redundant.

My personal observation and concern with this process simply rolling ahead on a
technicality  is that:

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'.

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.

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.


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

begin:vcard 
n:McGrath;Tim
tel;pager:+61(0)299633829
tel;cell:+61 (0)438352228
tel;fax:+61(0)893352142
tel;work:+61(0)893352228
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:tmcgrath@tedis.com.au 
x-mozilla-cpt:;-19376
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard