Re: Final Review Instructions

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

given that they have advertised closing the vote on Monday 5th at 12:00
Pacific time, can i propose we reschedule our teleconference to the
Wednesday at 03:00pm Pacific time.

this gives them time to turn it around, send to us and then for us to have
time to review and report.

can you advise if you agree on this a.s.a.p.?


Duane Nickull wrote:

> Hello TA Team: (QRT cc'd FYI)
>
> Brian and I have finished the disposition of comments.  In general,
> most of the comments were grammatical and there was lots of praise for
> the current TA Spec.  We have also received coments from outside the
> ebXML community that congratulate the work done for this document and
> the concepts within.
>
> Shortly,  you will have the opportunity to review the disposition of
> comments.  Please keep in mind the scope fo this reveiw.
>
> - This is not a Review cycle of the actual document.  YOu are reviewing
> the disposition of comments only.
> - There are lots of comment dispositions, please budget time
> accordingly.
>
> We wish to present this document to the Quality Regiew Team on Monday
> along with the extensive log of changes and comment disposition.  It is
> our hope that they will expediate a review and release to the plenary
> for a final vote in Vancouver.
>
> Please participate and vote by email by Monday at 12:00 Noon PST with
> either of the two choices:
>
> Yes - send it to QRT
> No - it I disagree with comment disposition.
>
> If the choice is "No",  please be prepared to cite reasons why the
> changes are not necessary.
>
> General Comments Overview:
>
> The Quality Review team Feedback/Comments were top -notch and were
> incorporated.  All have been addressed.  I beleive all but one were
> adopted.  many of these addressed the comment swe received from the
> plenary, showing us that all are thinking in the right direction.
>
> The first tier of comments (those dealing with technical wording,
> issues) were disposed of generally by adhering to the consensus of our
> Team and the QRT discussions we had about content for the document in
> Japan.  The issue of what content belongs in the TA document was very
> explicit and we believe that this document is 100% in conformance with
> the general consensus.  For the record,  roughly 85-95% of these
> comments were adopted or wording changed to reflect them.  All the
> issues were relatively minor and do not effect the overall Architecture
> of ebXML.
>
> There were second tier comments which were largely personal opinions.
> An example of these would be "The box in the corner should be blue
> instead of green - I don;t like the shape either".  Many of these were
> addressed with common sense and a view that many of them came without
> any technical arguements to back up the request.  Still - we carefully
> spend days examining the issues and gave all of these comments a
> thorough disposition.  Not all were adopted and the reasons are outlined
> in the comments disposition document.
>
> There was one last group of comments which were either insufficient or
> large and contrary to many of the principles and conventions of ebXML.
> Needless to say,  these also had to be carefully assessed and dealt
> with.  Examples of these comments may be "Remove Chapters 4 and 7 - they
> are not necessary".  We felt these were dealt with very fairly in light
> of the fact that the commenter(s) did not bother to participate in TA
> discussions, involve themselves with the QRT/TA process and also did not
> provide any solid technical, procedural or other reasoning behind their
> requests.  Most of these were not adopted on the basis that the requests
> did not conform to the QRT and TA teams work and direction and also
> contravened the work of several other teams.  Still - all of these
> comments were carefully analyzed and some were adopted partially (in
> principle).  Many were also addressed by previous changes we made to the
> document and by addressing other comments.
>
> In general,  the Editors feel that this process is now at a close and it
> is time to vote on this document as a whole by the ebXML plenary.  We do
> not anticipate any significant or sustained oposition to the TA
> specification.
>
> Please expect an email from Brian shortly.
>
> Thanks for all the hard work, expecially of my fellow editor Brian
> Eisenberg.
>
> Duane Nickull

--
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:;-23520
fn:tim mcgrath
end:vcard