RE: Interface Primitives Draft V021.

[Klaus-Dieter Naujok <knaujok@pacbell.net>]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:22:26 -0700, Munter, Joel D wrote:

>why dw chose to copy mr. naujok is beyond me.

Maybe for the same reason others have done so to ensure the ebXML
chair is aware of the issue :-)

Having said that, and noticing that this topic is not going away,
here is the response I have send earlier to the various parties
involved.  Maybe I made a mistake by not sending it to the team as
well. So here it is and I hope with Bob Sutor's comments and mine
we can move on and concentrate on the task at hand.

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE==================
>From: "Klaus-Dieter Naujok" <knaujok@pacbell.net>
>To: "Miller, Robert (GXS)" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>
>Cc: "Scott Nieman" <Scott.Nieman@norstanconsulting.com>,
>	"David RR Webber" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>,
>	"Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@east.sun.com>,
>	"Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM" <srh@us.ibm.com>
>Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 07:31:24 -0700
>Subject: RE: Interface Primitives Draft V021.
>

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:59:48 -0400, Miller, Robert (GXS) wrote:

>To ignore or atempt to squash inputs from participants could have a
>detrimental effect on the quality of the work, and of support for the
>finished product.  
>
>I trust you will gently remind the 'combatants' that this is a cooperative
>standardization effort, not a race to the finish line.  At no time should
>input from a participant be challenged on other than on technical grounds.
>
>I would also suggest that intercessory messages such as David's addressed to
>you should only be sent to the parties directly involved and not to the
>listserv.  

Gentleman,

I hope this term is applicable to all of us.  Bob is summing up
the way things should be. I am reviewing with the Executive
tomorrow the various points and issues raised but would prefer
that you sort this out yourselves.

My guiding light as chair of many groups has always been:

Any input is welcome as long as it contains to the subject at hand
and if it is a counter proposal contains the rational and value
add for the proposed change. This will allow the team to review
the proposal and determine if it will become part of their work
effort. Until such time, a proposal is nothing more than a
personal or national contribution and as such can not be referred
to as the groups or standard bodies work, in other words being
called "official". If the group does not accept the contribution,
it must identify on technical grounds the reason.  Nothing stops
the group to accept parts or modify parts for inclusion.

This process is not rocket science and should be easy to follow. 
If you need more advice from me, feel free to ask.  I don't plan
to raise this issue at today's Steering Committee conference call.

Regards,

Klaus 
--
Klaus-Dieter Naujok                                ebXML Chair
Antioch, CA USA                                +1.925.759.1670

PGP Finger: 6A4B 1683 CD99 E7BE F855  CC2F 4569 6BD8 76BD 1117