Re: Final Review Instructions con call

[nagwa <nagwa.abdelghfour@sun.com>]

Wednesday 7th Feb at 03:00 Pacific time. same information

Nagwa

Tim McGrath wrote:

> i haven't heard too much dissent and so i will ask nagwa to re-schedule our
> meeting to Wednesday 7th Feb at 03:00 Pacific time.
>
> i shall also notify the TA team of this schedule.
>
> nagwa wrote:
>
> > I did scheduled it for Tuesday, but I can change,
> > please let me know asap.
> > Nagwa
> >
> > Tim McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > 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
>
> --
> regards
> tim mcgrath
> TEDIS   fremantle  western australia 6160
> phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142