RE: vOTE CALL: RE: Counter Proposal Paper Draft 0.9

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

Waqar,

I agree fully.  I am surprised anything has happened at all in this group -
it is always so confrontational, hardly an environment for collaboration.

It would be helpful if other people jumped in and made suggestions as well,
it seems at times as if this group is a one man show.

--
Matthew MacKenzie
VP Research & Development
XML Global Technologies, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Waqar Sadiq [mailto:wsadiq@vitria.com]
Sent: January 12, 2001 7:44 AM
To: 'David RR Webber'; Farrukh Najmi
Cc: 'ebxml repository '
Subject: RE: vOTE CALL: RE: Counter Proposal Paper Draft 0.9



There has to be a way of resolving all this and picking the best technical
solution without getting personal or taking things personal.  It would just
improve the atmosphere a bit and ease the tension, allowing everyone to
focus on the technical merits of the proposals without being distracted by
the slander.

Thanks,

Waqar Sadiq


-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 9:29 AM
To: Farrukh Najmi
Cc: 'ebxml repository '
Subject: Re: vOTE CALL: RE: Counter Proposal Paper Draft 0.9


Message text written by Farrukh Najmi
>> I recommend a NO vote because:
> - Its not obvious to my how this proposal is better than the existing
> proposal (from a pros cons point of view).
> - the state of this document needs work
> - the estimated time to incorporate this document is great
> - the "dynamics" of this project team reminds me of a bunch of old mules
> that prevent us from agreeing on a quick path
>
> We'll have more time to talk later about this document, as I want more
> information such as the origin etc.   I do see some interesting use
cases,
> but again, not enough time.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Halleluh - what a surprise - and my prediction hath come to pass.

Privately I made the prediction on Monday that - once I had busted my chops
this week and hustled on all this - the final analysis from the Sun bastion

would be - we have not had enough time, there is not enough time, there's
not been enough time spent on this.  Frankly this is a tired and broken
record.

Let's see now - 20 odd methods - 5 odd people, 4 a piece.   If we focus in
on REALLY getting an abstraction layer API built here - it is possible.

However - at the start of the week I had plenty of specific detail
'Oh - you're inventing your own scripting process / query syntax",
now I've attempt to listen to that by allowing implementors to
specify that in a programming tool of their choice
'Oh - its too vague, it does not give specifics'.

Ok - well the bottom line for me is that OQL query statements is
something no DBA worth their salt would allow against a
backend server over an open channel.  So what's it to be?

I can add more specifics back in - but then I am I going to hear
shouts of 'foul' again?

Someone else can run round the track, work up a sweat, be
pelted with rocks, and then told to run round the opposite
way this time.

Thanks, DW.
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:MacKenzie;Matthew
FN:Matthew MacKenzie
NICKNAME:Matt
ORG:XML Global Technologies, Inc.;Research & Development
TITLE:VP Research & Development
TEL;WORK;VOICE:(604) 717-1100
TEL;VOICE:(800) 201-1848
TEL;WORK;FAX:(604) 717-1107
ADR;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:;;1818 Cornwall Avenue=0D=0ASuite 9;Vancouver;British Columbia;V6J 1C7;Canad=
a
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:1818 Cornwall Avenue=0D=0ASuite 9=0D=0AVancouver, British Columbia V6J 1C7=
=0D=0ACanada
URL:
URL:http://www.xmlglobal.com
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:matt@xmlglobal.com
EMAIL;INTERNET:matt@GoXML.com
REV:20001228T191617Z
END:VCARD