Re: TA Spec for release to the plenary

[Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>]

At 06:43 PM 10/26/00 -0700, duane wrote:
>I agree that the breakdown of process needs to be addressed, however,
>there are larger process issues that I would like to see included too:
>
>1.  The QRT not delivering a consistent message to the TA Team.  I am
>referring to comments in the last round that "Implementation details are
>NOT to be in the TA document" then turning around and telling us that
>the new TA document is incomplete becuase it does not prescribe
>implementation details for SME's.  This is cdlearly an process of
>breakdown internal to the QRT

This is an innaccurate characterization of the situation.
>
>2.  The larger issue of the QRT passing judgement on the suitability of
>other specs which are clearly dependant on the TA spec.  Once the TA
>spec gets approved, there must be a tracability matrix that makes sure
>other specifications will fit into the overall architecture.  The TA
>spec is currently (and rightfully so) subject to tracability to the
>Requirements Team Specification.  

This is a position which Duane has espoused in the past. It is not
a position with which there is widespread agreement. All specs are
subject to ebXML requirements. The TA spec does not currently reflect
the actual technical architecture of ebXML. Some parties, apparently,
believe that the TA spec has a place of primacy among ebXML specs.
The QR team did not see it that way.
>
>3.  The Executive Committee decides which specs go out for review, not
>the QRT.  YOu have issued your say and it was negative.  The EC does not
>necessarily share this viewpoint and in light of the fact that they did
>not comment, it must receive a green light to go out to the ebXML
>community (plenary).  

The QR team makes recommendations. It is up to the Executive to decide.
However, Duane's conclusion that silence on the part of the Executive
implies consent is incredibly self-serving.
>
>For heavens' sake,  we are all working for a common goal.  Let's put
>this all behind and move the process forward.  The TA document NEEDS to
>be seen by a larger audience before we finish it.  The QRT is preventing
>that from happening.  The document going out for review is labelled
>"DRAFT". NO one expects a finished paper.   

Actually, the QR team is not preventing anything. That is an argumentative
position and not befitting the co-editor of the TA specification.
>
>We have noted the comments from the QRT and many of them are conflictory
>with other opinions.  The QRT cannot override the plenary on these
>issues.  We have received support from most other teams (and in fact had
>input on the latest document from leaders of many of those teams).  

Whatever. This has clearly become an adversarial tirade, and not 
worthy of further discussion.

The QR team has advised the Executive of its recommendations, and
has been courteous enough to advise the Steering Committee and the
Architecture Team when it was discovered that the Executive had not
followed through on the approval process.

While noting that there are apparent flaws in the process, the co-editor
of the TA spec proposes to take the ebXML process in his own hands.
This raises grave concerns about the ebXML process.

I encourage other members to advise Duane to tone down his rhetoric.

Regards,

Murray