RE: ebXML Question re: Comments by Organizations

["Rudie, Donald" <RudieD@DNB.com>]

Mike, Bob,
           I don't think that it is a good idea to start weighing the merits
of a comment, suggestion, or proposal depending on the "importance"
(importance can be defined in many ways) of the entity submitting it.  This
will lead to quicksand.  

       
Also I don't think that we should start explaining,in writing, our reasons
for doing something or doing something in a particular way.  As a wise king
say two hundred years ago-- your decision will probably be the correct one,
however, your stated reasons for doing it are probably wrong.

     Don Rudie

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Rawlins [mailto:rawlins@metronet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:47 PM
To: sutor@us.ibm.com
Cc: lms@wwnet.com; anders.grangard@edifrance.org;
annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com; bill.smith@sun.com;
dick.raman@cab-edi.net; drummond@onramp.net; duane@xmlglobal.com;
klaus@templar.net; plevine@telcordia.com; rachelf@ix.netcom.com;
raywalker@attglobal.net; scott.nieman@NorstanConsulting.com; List, ebXML
Requirements
Subject: Re: ebXML Question re: Comments by Organizations


Bob,

Thanks.  That's a well articulated, common sense type of answer that
reflects
what I was thinking.  I still would like to see some other opinions though,
and have it on the agenda for our next call.

Mike

sutor@us.ibm.com wrote:

> I don't think that there is a formula to tell you how to weight any given
> submission. I do think that it is important to attach the contributor to
> the submission when you are considering it so you can gauge the
> context for information. If a large organization proposes something
> that you consider outlandish, you should do some work to understand
> why it submitted it and whether it is really considered a high priority.
> You might not have the cycles to do quite so much work for individual
> submissions, though ultimately you need an explanation of why you
> included or excluded any particular requirement.
>
> ..........................................................
> Bob Sutor
> Program Director, XML Technology
> 716-243-2445 / Fax 716-243-1778 / Tieline 320-9138
> Cellular 716-317-6899 / Pager 1-800-946-4645 PIN # 1473757
> sutor@us.ibm.com
>
> Mike Rawlins <rawlins@metronet.com> on 03/28/2000 12:26:17 PM
>
> Please respond to rawlins@metronet.com
>
> To:   lms@wwnet.com
> cc:   Robert S Sutor/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, anders.grangard@edifrance.org,
>       annabelle.bullen@us.pwcglobal.com, bill.smith@sun.com,
>       dick.raman@cab-edi.net, drummond@onramp.net, duane@xmlglobal.com,
>       klaus@templar.net, plevine@telcordia.com, rachelf@ix.netcom.com,
>       raywalker@attglobal.net, scott.nieman@norstanconsulting.com, "List,
>       ebXML Requirements" <ebXML-Requirements@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject:  ebXML Question re: Comments by Organizations
>
> I would like some guidance about how to deal with specification comments
> received from an organization.   It is clear that ebXML membership and
> voting is by individual, the group being composed of individual
> "experts".    However, comments on specifications are not quite so
> clear.  Most of the comments on the ebXML Requirements Specification
> came from individuals.   We did receive one submission from CEN/ISSS as
> an organization commenting.   I think it appropriate to review the
> comments, but I find the submission somewhat troublesome.   Are we under
> any obligation to give the comments more weight than others because they
> came from a group?   Should we treat them as just another individual
> commenting?  Or, should we not consider their comments since we are
> functioning as individuals?   (NOTE:  I don't see this as a problem with
> comments submitted by other ebXML project teams, particularly when they
> relate directly to their respective requirements in the specification).
>
> I feel certain that we will run into this again as the other
> specifications are released for comment.  So,  I think it important that
> we decide on a policy soon and clearly articulate it.  I would like to
> see some first impressions on the listserv, but ask Klaus and Bob to put
> this on the agenda for our next steering committee call.
>
> Mike
>
> --
> Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EDI Consulting
> http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EDI Consulting
http://www.metronet.com/~rawlins/