Re: TA Spec for release to the plenary

[duane <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

> 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.

Not self serving Murray.  We are all on the same team - ebXML.  My goal
is to do my job within ebXML.  

Let's drop all the negative issues and decide how to move this forward. 
We can;t sit here in a stall position arguing amongst ourselves.  

Let's examine the facts:

1/  The TA team has prepared a spec which many people believe meets the
necessities in order to be released to the plenary for further
comments.  I remain neutral on the issue and would abstain from voting
on it.  

2/  QRT has recommended that the spec not go to the plenary however does
not have the power of absolute veto.

3/ THe spec document is a DRAFT so no one expects it to be 100% complete

4/  Both the TA and QRT believe the spec needs comments from a wider
audience in order to be completed.

5/  IN order to meet the Vancouver approval date,  the TA document must
be released for it's first round of comments tomorrow.

Proposed solution:

The first thing that would help us all is the Executives' ruling on this
matter.  It is my understanding that they are the only power that can
veto/approve the spec for distribution.

Because the latter is unlikely to happen before tomorrow,  I propose
that we go forward with the release and both the QRT and TA teams sit
down and review their own internal comments as well as the general
comments from the first two weeks.

IMHO - our two project teams represent too narrow a segment to decide
the final fate of the architecture.


> Actually, the QR team is not preventing anything. That is an argumentative
> position and not befitting the co-editor of the TA specification.

I am sorry to be the messenger of those who feel this specification is
critical to ebXML but someone had to say this.  The sentiment is felt
among a fairly wide segment of ebXML.  
I am merely the messenger.

> >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.

That is not the wish.  Please do not take anything said here
personally.  We are all working for the same cause and see light on
issues differently.  IT is a healthy process to question but preventing
our Vancouver timeline from being made is not necessary to accomplish
our mutual objective.  I think it will send a more powerful message to
the outside community if this architecture document is once more delayed
than if is goes out as a draft with a few shortcomings.

> 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 am not taking matters into my own hands.  I am following a procedure
set in place by others.
 
> I encourage other members to advise Duane to tone down his rhetoric.

Instead of that,  could we not both work together to get this thing
done?  It is not about personal rhetoric.  

I think that at this point, you will agree that the Executive must step
in to take control of this situation.  Neither of our teams are
empowered to make the final decision.  We both serve and answer to the
Executive Committee.  

The people from IBM, SUN and other who worked so hard to get this spec
out in time deserve an answer.  I am outspoken and will not hesitate to
express my opinions as I see fit but they are my opinions.  I will take
full responsibility for them and will be the first one to accept that
they may be wrong.  I don't remain attached to the outcome of this but I
am very committed to finishing ebXML.   

YOur offer to help the TA team in Tokyo is much appreciated.

My $0.02 (canadian) worth.

Duane Nickull

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Murray